| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 99 of 5.3.2019 Decided on: 13.12.2019 Shingara Singh, H.No.48, Urban Estate, Phase-3, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Hira Automobiles Ltd., Rajbaha Road, Patiala. 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa: President Smt. Inderjeet Kaur: Member Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal: Member ARGUED BY Sh.Singara Singh, complainant in person. Sh.Rakesh Kumar Garg,Adv. counsel for OP No.1. Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte. ORDER M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Shingara Singh complainant himself against Hira Automobiles Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
- Briefly, it is pleaded in the complaint, that the complainant is 70% disabled person. He had booked Vitara Brezza Zdi AMT car under persons with disabilities category with Hira Automobiles Ltd. (OP No.1). He deposited Rs.50,000/- as booking amount alongwith all the relevant documents for booking under under this category on 5.2.2019.
- OP demanded remaining amount through e-mail and he paid balance amount as demanded i.e. Rs.7,68,203/- in advance on 13.2.2019 but the delivery yet awaited.
- It is alleged that in case of normal person and common practice Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., charges only Rs.11,000/- as booking amount .Remaining amount is paid at the time of delivery of vehicle .It is clear cut discrimination, harassment (economically, mentally and physically) to the persons with disabilities as per Revised Persons with Disabilities Act,2016, discrimination on the ground of being disabled.
- On this background of the facts, the complainant has claimed compound interest on the advance excess amount deposited for booking @12% per annum i.e. on the amount of Rs.50,000/- minus Rs.11,000/- = Rs.39,000/- from 5.2.2019 and on the amount of Rs.7,68,203/- from 13.2.2019 upto the delivery of the vehicle.
Complainant has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation etc. and Rs.5000/- as litigation charges. - Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP No.2.As such OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.4.2019.
- OP No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
In reply, OP No.1 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant is not consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed; complainant has no cause of action, he has not come to the court with clean hands and has filed a vexatious and frivolous complaint, which is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs of Rs.11,000/- as provided under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complainanthas concealed true picture from this Forum and has not come to the court with clean hands. He has not placed on record entire policy list and terms and conditions of MSIL alongwith e-mail annexed with his complaint. He has intentionally concealed the policy settled by MSIL in case of special category cases. The complainant has put the OP into unnecessary litigation. OP is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. - On merits, it is admitted that complainant has deposited Rs.50,000/- as booking amount for vehicle. As per OP, the real facts are that the complainant applied automated breezza car under special category of handicapped or disabled person who are not able to drive the normal vehicle of gears under the provisions of Persons with disabilities category .There is also a policy of the Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and department of Heavy Industry, in case of booking and delivery system for concessional GST rate for Auto Transmission/Auto Gear shift cars, purchased by the customer with physical disability (with left leg disability)consumer has to deposit minimum booking amount of Rs.50,000/-,after procuring the certificate from Ministry of Heavy Industries.The customer must pay the balance amount i.e. sale price of the vehicle minus the booking amount to the d dealer.
Complainant has booked the aforesaid vehicle under aforesaid category.He had deposited the booking amount and remaining sale price of the vehicle after going through the policy provided to him. All the other averments of the complainant are denied.In the end OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. - In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of disability certificate, Ex.C1, copy of order booking/commitment checklist,Ex.C2, copy of receipt dated 5.2.2019,Ex.C3,copy of e-mail,Ex.C4, copy of receipt dated13.2.2019,Ex.C5, copy of Persons Disability extract, Ex.C6.
In additional evidence, the complainant tendered into evidence format of medical certificates, Exs.C7,C8, copy of certificate regarding GST,Ex.C9, copy of booking receipt,Ex.C10, copy of estimate slip, Ex.C11, copy of sanction letter, Ex.C12, copies of receipts, Exs.C13,C14, copy of sale certificate, Ex.C15 and copy of tax invoice, Ex.C16. - The OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Gill, Ex.OPA, copy of resolution, Ex.OP1 and copy of e-mail,Ex.OP2.
Complainant has also submitted written arguments. - We have the complainant, ld. counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- It is submitted by the complainant that OPs have received Rs.50,000/- as booking amount and remaining amount has been received in advance, whereas the OP was to receive Rs.11,000/- as booking amount and the remaining amount was to be received at the time of delivery of the vehicle.
- It is further pointed out by the complainant that he has placed on record, copy of receipt,Ex.C10, whereby one Baljinder Kaur has paid Rs.50,000/- only as booking amount on 29.8.2018.She was delivered the vehicle on 5.11.2019.She paid Rs.2,67,761/- on 5.11.2019 and amount of Rs.4,25,000/- was paid on 10.11.2018.Sales certificate proves that the vehicle was sold on 5.11.2019.This document proves that the OP received the sale price in advance and rather part payment received even five days after sale of the vehicle.The documentary evidence proves that the OP has adopted unfair trade practice by charging entire price from the complainant.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the amounts have been received as per policy of the company. The version of the complainant that Rs.4,25,000/- were received from Baljinder Kaur even after five days from the sale of the vehicle is not acceptable. The complainant himself has placed on record sanction letter, Ex.C12, dated 5.11.2018 issued by SBOI, which proves that the SBI had sanctioned Rs.4,25,000/- in favour of Baljinder Kaur on 5.11.2018 and this amount was received by the company from the bank .
- We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.
- Before proceeding further, we would like to make it clear that the matter is to be decided on the basis of policy and not on the basis of amounts received by the OP from any other person.
- Complainant has also placed on record copy of extract of the e-mai,Ex.C4, whereby the complainant was intimated regarding revised booking process to follow.
- As per this procedure, the customer with disability was to apply to MSIL dealer for purchase of vehicle under GST rate applicable and thereafter the customer has also to deposit booking amount for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the choice of the product by means of demand draft.
Therefore, the document Ex.C4, relied upon by the complainant, itself proves that the booking amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be paid to the dealer. - The OP has also placed on record revised booking policy, effective from 1.11.2018. At page 22 of this document, it is further mentioned that after procuring the certificate from Ministry of Heavy Industries, the customer must pay the balance amount i.e. Sale price of the vehicle minus booking amount, which he has already paid the dealer, by means of demand draft, in favour of the dealer and also submitted the documents mentioned therein.
As such, the policy proves that the complainant was required to pay the balance amount in advance. No deficiency in service can be attributed on behalf of the OP. - Of course, the complainant has tried to lend corroboration to his version from the case of one Baljinder Kaur but Baljinder Kaur has also deposited booking amount of Rs.50,000/- in advance and of course , the remaining amount at the time of delivery but version of the complainant that Baljinder Kaur has paid balance of Rs.4,25,000/- even five days after of the purchase of vehicle is not acceptable.
- Complainant has also produced on record copy of letter dated 5.11.2018 which proves that Baljinder Kaur was sanctioned loan of Rs.4,25,000/- on 5.11.2018 and this amount certainly received by the OP from the bank which was already sanctioned in favour of Baljinder Kaur.
- The net conclusion is that complaint of the complainant is without merits and stands dismissed. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:13.12.2019 B.S.Dhaliwal Inderjeet Kaur M. P. Singh Pahwa Member Member President | |
