Haryana

StateCommission

CC/116/2016

KHUSINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

SURENDER PAL

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint No.130 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 19.05.2016

Date of Decision: 01.06.2016

 

Lalit Kumar Huria S/o Shri M.L.Huria R/o M 44, Ridgewood, DLF Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002

…..Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd. (through its Managing director) Tower A, Ground Floor, Unitech Cyber Park, Greenwood City, Sector 38, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana.

2.      Swede Auto Pvt. Ltd. (through its Managing Director) Parsvnath Exotica,Golf Course road, Sector-53, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Opposite parties

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.D.D.Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by complainant that  he purchased a car make Volvo (model Volvo S60 Kinetic D4 2.0) from opposite party (O.P.) No.2 which is authorized  sale/service centre of O.P.No.1 vide invoice dated 31.10.2012 (as in complaint  but actually it is 31.10.2015). O.P.No.2 charged Rs.3,69,000/- for registration fee and Rs.25,000/- each for logistic and essential kit as in invoice  dated 31.10.2012. Cubic capacity (CC) has been mentioned whereas  according to rules and guidelines it is necessary to mention CC of engine in the invoice (as in para No.5 of the complaint).  As per invoice value of the car was Rs.34,59,111/- with debit Note Value of Rs.4,19,000/- total cost comes to Rs. 38,78,111/-.  After deducting discount of Rs.Nine lacs it comes to Rs.29,78,111/-, but, O.P.No.2 received Rs.31/- lac from him.  In this way he charged Rs.1,21,889/- in excess and is liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.

          It was assured that the registration certificate (R.C.) of the car would be sent to him within one month i.e. before the expiry of temporary registration No.HR-99 WJ Temp 9753, which has expired on 02.12.2015, but, permanent registration  is not supplied as yet despite charges.  He cannot use the vehicle without permanent registration number.  It amounts to deficiency in service. Vehicle is also not satisfactory in terms of performance as per claim and assurance given by the O.Ps.  Due to act and conduct of O.Ps. he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.31/- lacs besides Rs.1,50,000/-, spent on taxi to travel from Gurgaon to Delhi on daily basis. So O.Ps. be directed to refund Rs.31/- lacs alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of purchase besides Rs.1,21,889/- charged extra, Rs.Five lacs for mental harassment etc., Rs.75,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.2000/- per day travelling expenses.

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of purchase of vehicle O.P.No.2 charged Rs.3,69,000/- for registration purpose.  It was assured that permanent registration number would be supplied before expiry of aforesaid temporary registration number, which was valid up to 02.12.2015.  Even thereafter O.Ps. have not supplied the permanent number and he is not in a position to use the car.  He has spent huge amount on taxi, as mentioned above.    O.P.No.2 also charged Rs.1,21,889/- in excess, as mentioned above. The vehicle is not up to mark and there is manufacturing defect. So he be granted relief claimed for.

5.      These arguments are devoid of any force. From the perusal of documents available on the file i.e. Annexure H, Annexure I dated 22.12.2015 it is clear that complainant was informed about the permanent registration No. which is HR 26-CT6017 and O.P.No.2 is requesting to tell the place where the number plate can be fixed.  These documents clearly show that averments raised by complainant are altogether false.  O.P.No.1 did not charge any amount from him for R.C. Further, he has not produced any document to show that Rs.1,21,889/- was charged in excess.  Annexure C clearly shows that discount of Rs.9/- lacs has been given.  It is no-where mentioned that said amount was to be deducted from invoice Annexure A.  This plea is also falsified as per these documents.

6.      Not only to this extent it is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect, but, it is no-where mentioned in the complaint that what manufacturing defect is.  He is altogether silent about the defect.  He has not produced any type of report or job card to show that vehicle developed any problem at any time.  It shows that this complaint is baseless and has been filed just to harass O.Ps.  It is nothing more than abuse of process of law. Such like litigation is to be curbed at the very initial stage.  Complainant, whose version is falsified as per documents filed by him, should be penalized so that frivolous litigation can be checked.  Resultantly the complaint is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which should be deposited by the complainant in Haryana State legal Services Authority, Sector-14, Panchkula.

 

June 1st, 2016         Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                       Member                                             Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                                     Addl.Bench             

S.K.