Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/122/2014

Anju Sagar Ralla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goyal Automotive Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Perminder Jeet Singh Ralla authrozed rep

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. Anju Sagar Ralla has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To refund Rs.28,204/- + Rs.4500/- alongwith interest @ 18%,

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental torture /tension, physical harassment & financial loss caused to her,

iii)     To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 30.8.2013, she had purchased Hyundai eon magna+car (Home delivery encash on delivery) bearing engine No.171558, chassis No.197545 from the O.P. No.1 at her home situated in Village Urapar, District SBS Nagar and the said O.P., through its designated & Company’s uniformed staff, had delivered her the said car and received payment of Rs.3,33,000/- (through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Chakdana, SBS Nagar) at her home, on the very same day. It is stated that on the very first day, when the O.P. No.1 came to her house at village Urapar, District SBS Nagar to sell its product and its sales manager gave her festive season offer with the car EON Magna Plus Metallic car as under:-

          i)       Free insurance of worth Rs.10,000/-

          ii)      Free permanent registration certificate worth Rs.22,500/-

          iii)     Free Temporary Registration Number worth Rs.500/-

          iv)     Corporate discount worth Rs.3,000/-,

          v)      Cash discount worth Rs.12,000/-,

          vi)     If you have old car, then Rs.10,000/- exchange bonus + car

                   value (15,000/-)=Rs.25,000/-,

 

                   Total value of the festive season offer is

                   Rs.10,000+25,000+500+3000+12000+25000=73,000/-

 

                   The O.P. No.1 calculated the price of the car as under:-

                  

i)       Price of one unit of EON Magana plus (metallic) 3,73,128/-

ii)      Insurance                                                                 10,000/-

          iii)     Permanent Registration Certificate                         22,500/-

          iv)     Temporary Registration Number                               500/-

                    Total amount for the car is……        ……………..       4,06,128/-

 

                    Company price    4,06,128/-

                    Free offer                73,000/-

                    Thus, the customer was to pay Rs.3,33,128/- for one unit, which she had paid to the O.P. No.1. However, lateron, the O.P. No.1 refused to take old car, for want of RC, therefore, she paid Rs.25,000/- more  ( i.e. Rs.10,000/- exchange bonus + Rs.15,000/- as value of the said car) and had taken back her old car from O.P. No.1. She had paid Rs.3,58,000/-+ 300 ( Patrol, toll tax) to O.P. No.1, but the O.P. No.1 had given invoice of Rs.3,30,104/- instead of Rs.3,58,000/- . In the invoice, the O.P. No.1 had mentioned the amount as Rs.3,30,104/-, and Rs.4500/- as other charges illegally. Moreover, she came to know from O.P. No.2 that O.P. No.1 had paid Rs.18061/- for the registration instead of Rs.22,500/- and that there is no provision for temporary number fees according to Motor Vehicle Act. The O.P. No.2, thus, also committed deficiency in service by allowing the dealer to submit invoice by leveling other charges inspite of the fact that charging of the same has been declared illegal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The O.P. No.1 is habitual cheater because after purchase of the car in question the O.P. No.1 had not issued the Registration Certificate, which was provided only after filing of complaint to that effect against O.P. No.1 before this Forum.  It is further stated that since the demonstration, test drive, festive season offer of the car in question was given by the said O.P at VPO Urapar, District SBS Nagar, the same was purchased from O.P. No.1 at VPO Urapar, District SBS Nagar,  all the payments were made to the said O.P. at VPO Urapar, District SBS Nagar through the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch, Village Chakdana, District SBS Nagar and temporary number for the said car was also provided by the DTO, Jallandhar, therefore, the District Forum, SBS Nagar has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try & decide this complaint. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.P. No.1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable legally as well as on the ground that the complainant had filed a similar complaint earlier before the Hon’ble Tribunal at Ludhiana, bearing No. 3/2014, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.02.2014, after her satisfaction; that she is barred by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same as the answering O.P. No.1 carries on its business at Ludhiana and no part of transaction had taken place at Village Urapar, District SBS Nagar. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question from the answering O.P. However, the details of festive seasons offer as given in the complaint are stated to be wrong and have been denied and it is stated that what was offered to the complainant is duly mentioned in the proposed Transaction Bill, wherein details of the offer are clearly mentioned i.e. R.C. + Insurance + Rs.3000/- corporate claim + 10,000/- Exchange Bonus + Basic Accessories + Seat Cover + 12104 CD. The complainant was charged a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- correctly and Rs.25,000/- was charged on account of failure of the complaint to produce and hand over RC of the old car, which she had offered for exchange, details of which are Rs.10,000/- on account of Bonus + Rs.15,000/- on account of value of the old car. Other charges of Rs.4500/- mentioned in invoice have nothing to do with the logistic charges or on account of any service charges for registration of the vehicle etc., but are on account of stock yard services/warehouse charges, driving cost in terms of fuel consumed and people engaged etc. The complainant was fully satisfied with the service of O.P. No.1, as is evident from the Quality Rating form filed by the complainant on 30.08.2013, but she got annoyed, later-on, due to some delay in issuance of RC from the office of the DTO, Ludhiana and filed a complaint before the Hon’ble Forum at Ludhiana, which was,  lateron, withdrawn by her on 19.02.2014 after receipt of the RC. It is stated that the complainant is not entitled to refund of any amount, as no extra amount has been charged from her. The answering O.P. has not committed unfair trade practice, cheating, negligence or deficiency in service, as alleged by her. All other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made that the complaint be dismissed, the same being without any substance.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the authorized representative of the complainant tendered her affidavit, Ex. C1, documents Ex. C2 to Ex. C14 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Dharamjit Singh,  authorized representative of O.P. No.1/A and photocopies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 and have carefully gone through the record of the file.

 

6.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submitted that from the bare reading of complaint it is apparent that neither any allegation has been made nor any relief has been sought against the O.P. No.2, and the DTO, SBS Nagar as been impleaded as O.P in the array of the O.Ps., purposely, just to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. In fact, the grievance of the complainant is against the O.P. No. 1, from whom she had purchased the car in question, and the said O.P. is doing its business within the territory of District Ludhiana. In the document, Ex. OP-4, meant for quality rating, against the column meant for ‘Dealer Name’ the name of Goyal Automotive (P) and against the column for ‘Dealer City’ Ludhiana has been mentioned and the said document also bears signatures of the complainant, namely, Anju Sagar. This fact that the complainant had purchased the said car from Ludhiana also got fortified from the Temporary Registration Certificate, Ex. C5, which was issued at Ludhiana, and also from the receipt issued by Goyal Automobiles Ltd. G.T. Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana for the sum of Rs.25,000/- received from the complainant. Thus, no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file complaint against O.P. No.1, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground, alone. Even on merits, the complainant has failed to prove any case against the said O.P. because the O.P. No.1 had rightly charged a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- from the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant did not hand over her old car to the O.P. No.1, therefore, she was not entitled to the exchange offer i.e. Rs.10,000/- on account of bonus + Rs.15,000/- on account of value of the old car totaling Rs.25,000/-. The other charges of Rs.4500/- as mentioned in Retail Invoice Ex. C2, have also been rightly charged on account of stock yard services/warehouse charges, driving costs in terms of fuel consumed & people engaged and the same have nothing to do with the logistic charges. 

 

                   In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the complainant vehemently argued that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter because, the complainant is resident of District SBS Nagar and the O.P. No.1 had delivered the said car to her at her village Urapar, which falls in District SBS Nagar and the payments were also received from her at her home by the officials of O.P. No.1. He further submitted that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3,58,000/- whereas the O.P. had issued invoice for a sum of Rs.3,30,104/- and had charged Rs.4500/- under the head ‘Other Charges’ illegally. Therefore, the complaint be accepted and the O.P. be directed to refund the sum of Rs.28,204/- + Rs.4500/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation costs.

 

7.                After going through the contents of the complaint, it is evident that although the complainant has impleaded District Transport Officer, SBS Nagar as O.P. No.2, yet neither any specific allegation regarding overcharging of any amount has been made against the said O.P. nor any relief against him has been sought in the complaint. That is why, the notice was ordered to be issued by the District Forum vide order dated 28.11.2014 against O.P. No. 1 only. In these facts & circumstances, the complaint filed against O.P. No.2 is dismissed being not maintainable.

 

8.                So far as the complaint filed against O.P. No.1 and the reliefs sought against it, are concerned, the O.P. No.1 carries on its business at Ludhiana as is evident from the perusal of the Temporary Registration Certificate, Ex. C5, as the same was issued at Ludhiana. Even in the receipt dated 2.10.2013 issued for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, received from the complainant, the address of Goyal Automobiles Ltd. G.T. Road, Jugiana, Ludhiana is found mentioned. Even the complainant, in support of her contention that the O.P. No.1 had delivered the car in question to her at her village Urapar, which falls in the District of SBS Nagar, has not produced any document, thus, in the absence of any documentary proof, we do not find any force in the said contention. Even otherwise, merely by making payment to the said O.P. through the bank situated at Chakdana, District SBS Nagar, does not confer any right to the complainant to file the present complaint before the District Forum, SBS Nagar. Since from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file this complaint against O.P. No.1 within the territorial jurisdiction of SBS Nagar District, as per Section 11 of the Act, this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and the complaint filed against the O.P. No.1 is liable to be dismissed. This issue has been squarely settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of ‘Sonic Surgical versus National Insurance Company Ltd.’ 2010 CTJ 2 (Supreme Court) (CP).

 

9.                For the reasons stated above & without going into the merits of the case, the complaint is also dismissed qua O.P. No.1, for want of territorial jurisdiction, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/court for redressal of her grievance against O.P. No.1 and the adjudicating court may condone the delay, if any, as per provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, for the time spent by the complainant before this Forum.

 

10.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. 

ANNOUNCED

Dated: 11.03.2015