BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Deepak Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.1260, First Floor, Sector 21, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Hind Motors (India) Ltd., Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

2.      Tata Motors, SCO No.170-172, First Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager/Authorised Signatory.

3.      Gurgaon Tata Motors, Car Business Unit, Unit No.305,  3^rd Floor, Tower B, Signature Towers, South City I, NH-8, Gurgaon through its Regional Manager/Authorised signatory.

..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Munish Goel, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Adv. for OP-1

Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv. for OPs 2 & 3.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, after having detailed discussions with the representatives of OP-1 and being assured by them he purchased a Tata Indica Vista Aura 1.3Q-set car vide retail invoice dated 8.10.2009 for Rs.4,70,962.47 for which he took loan from the HDFC Bank Ltd. and from that account issued two cheques for Rs.6,358/- and Rs.6000/- totaling Rs.12,358/- for making payment of first instalment of Rs.10,243/-.  It was informed that the balance amount of Rs.2,115/- was deducted towards diesel, number plate and VAT charges but still an amount of Rs.142.75 was charged in excess. He was also informed by the OPs that as per the prevalent scheme on account of Diwali festival, he could win prize upto Rs.25,000/- if he purchased the car during the said period.  He took the delivery of the car on 7.10.2009 believing the same to be a new car and even the sale certificate showed that the car was manufactured in January 2009.  He got the car insured and registered.  On 13.10.2009 he received a call from OP-1 informing that he has won the prize of Rs.23,552/- and he was asked to collect the cheque and upon contacting them he was handed over the cheque. However, on 29.10.2009 while checking the documents of the car he found that in the service coupons attached with the owners manual and service book the invoice date was mentioned as 27.9.2008 though the invoice was issued on 8.10.2009.  When contacted the OPs informed that they have wrongly delivered the vehicle of 2008 model and wrongly issued the certificate and invoice mentioning the vehicle of 2009 make.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply OP-1 submitted that on 7.10.2009 the complainant purchased the car manufactured in September 2008 as per his own will because of the discount of Rs.23,000/- offered on it.  It has been denied that an amount of Rs.142.75 was charged in excess; that there was any scheme regarding cash prize or that the complainant won the prize of Rs.25,000/-.  It has been submitted that the amount of Rs.552/- was returned to the complainant through cheque dated 14.10.2009 in the sum of Rs.23,552/- and the insurance of the car was given free of cost under the scheme of Tata Motors. It has been stated that model of the car was mentioned as 2009 instead of 2008 on the written request of the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             In their separate written reply OPs 2 & 3 admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle form OP-1.  It has been denied that the answering OPs have received any of the alleged excess amounts or that they issued any of the alleged documents required for the purpose of registration of the vehicle.  The allegations pertaining to OP-1 were denied for want of knowledge.  It has been admitted that the OPs were having Diwali scheme; that the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 7.10.2009 and that he received the discount upto Rs.25,000/- for the purchase of the vehicle.  It has been denied that the OPs concealed anything from the complainant/OP-1 or that there was any false representation.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including written arguments. 

6.             The contention of the complainant is that the vehicle sold to him was 2008 model but it was wrongly represented by the OPs that it was 2009 model and they mentioned this fact in the sale certificate Annexure C-6. Consequently the year of manufacture was mentioned as 2009 in the certificate of registration Annexure C-8 and in the policy of insurance Annexure C-7.  The Learned Counsel for the complainant on the basis of photographs Annexure C-14 to C-22 argued that the vehicle was manufactured in 2008 and the complainant is therefore entitled to the replacement of the car with 2009 model or to a refund of Rs.4,70,000/- plus Rs.12,358/- spent by him on the insurance.  He also prayed for Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and mental agony and Rs.33,000/- as costs of  litigation.

7.             On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the OP argued that infact the complainant from the very beginning knew that it is 2008 model.  The OPs had advertised their scheme of giving rebate of Rs.23,000/- on the said car, it being of year of 2008.  The complainant agreed to purchase the same and therefore claimed a special discount of Rs.23,000/-, which is admitted to have been received by the complainant.  The contention that the said amount was given to him in view of the Diwali prize is not proved from any evidence.  The OPs have denied if any such prize was announced by them on the eve of Diwali or the complainant had won any such prize.  Their contention is that the complainant became greedy that is why he has cooked up this false story of a Diwali prize of Rs.23,000/- in order to explain the special discount of Rs.23,000/- received by him from the OP for purchasing 2008 model car in 2009.

8.             The OPs have also produced Annexure OP-1/2 showing that there was free insurance+5000(loyalty)+5000 (exchange bonus) on the said car.  OP-1/1A shows the price of the said car and Annexure OP-1/1 shows the amount  due from the complainant and the excess amount of Rs.552/- having been refunded to him alongwith special discount of Rs.23,000/-.  The contention of the complainant that he had won a special Diwali prize is therefore falsified by these documents also.

9.             The OPs have also produced Annexure OP-1/4 which is mentioned to be an affidavit signed by the complainant on 7.10.2009 the date on which he placed the order for the purchase of the car as mentioned in Annexure C-1 and the date on which the amount was deposited by him vide receipts Annexure C-2 and C-3, that he has purchased the said car which was 2008 model but since he has to go for registration of the said vehicle in 2009, he requested the OP to change the model from 2008 to 2009.  He undertook not to raise any claim on account of the above. The OP-1 has mentioned this fact in para number 13 of the reply and agreed to mention the year of manufacture as January, 2009 instead of 2008.  It is true that the action of OP-1 is totally wrong but it was done by them to please their customer, who had undertaken not to take any action  or to lodge any claim in this respect. The complainant however proved to be unreliable person, he did not even spare OP-1 who had acted on his request and tried to please him to mention the manufacturing year of the vehicle as 2009 instead of 2008 thereby rendering the service as desired by the complainant.  The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant that Annexure OP-1/4 is not an affidavit because it has not been attested, is correct.  However, it is the undertaking given by the complainant duly signed by him, which proves that the complainant from the very beginning knew that it was 2008 model, that the mention of year of manufacturer in the sale certificate Annexure C-6 as 2009 was done at his request and that he had undertaken not to raise any claim on account of the said change and he is therefore estopped from filing the present complaint.

10.           The perusal of the complaint shows that the complainant did not mention this fact regarding OP-1/4 in his complaint, otherwise the signatures are admitted by him. The OP had no interest to obtain this writing from the complainant because they have already given him a rebate of Rs.23,000/- for the purchase of the said model.  The complainant has filed the present complaint due to his greed to get a new car at the said price and also to claim Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.

11.    In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this is a false and frivolous complaint filed by the complainant just to harass the OPs. The complaint is accordingly dismissed and the complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to each of the OPs 1,2 and 3 as costs as provided under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.

12.           In order to stop the complainant from cheating any other customer by resale of the vehicle, projecting it to be 2009 model, it is necessary that intimation in this respect is sent to the Registering authority to change the model of the said vehicle from 2009 to 2008.  The copy of the order be therefore sent to the licencing authority Chandigarh in this respect.   

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.