DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 285 of 1.12.2015
Decided on: 10.8.2017
Barinder Singh S/o Sh.Charanjit Singh, aged 31yrs. R/o H.No.213, Ward No.23, Uttam Nagar, Khanna, District Ludhiana.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Hira Automobiles Ltd., through their Branch Manager, available at Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha,District Patiala.
…………Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Amit Kumar Bedi,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Rakesh K.Garg,Advocate,counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Barinder Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay the due amount of Rs.31,100/- i.e. benefit as per July offer/Scheme + pay the differential amount of rate of interest between SBOP and HDFC bank on car loan amount + refund of Rs.9140/- towards loan processing fee charged by HDFC Bank + pay the excess amount of Rs.3591/-, alongwith interest @12% per annum from 1.8.2015 till realization
To hand over the proof of transfer of old car and
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 25.7.2015, in order to purchase a new “Swift Vdi” car, he approached the OP, the authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. The representative of the OP, present there, explained that the company was giving a total discount of Rs.31,100/- on the said car, if he books the same on the same very day i.e.25.7.2015, which included gift cheque of Rs.5000/- + exchange bonus of Rs.15000/-(besides value of car), if he exchanged an old car+ corporate bonus of Rs.5000/- + 2gm Gold coin or Rs.5000/- + car accessory kit worth Rs.1100/-(which included car mats, mud flaps, perfume, temple, etc.) to be given by the dealer as complimentary gift. The Manager of the OP also confirmed the said scheme .Thereafter, he booked a ‘swift Vdi’ car on 25.7.2015 and signed the half filled pre-printed papers/performas with regard to booking of new car, selling of old car, registration of new car and also towards finance of new car. The OP assured that the car would be got registered by it with DTO , Ludhiana. The value of the old car was assessed @ Rs.1,lac by the OP .It is stated that the OP did not tell as to whom it will transfer the old car as no document as proof of transfer or exchange of old car to it was given to the complainant. On 31.7.2015, he was called for taking the delivery of the new car and he to do so. But the OP failed to give any financial benefits as promised by it. He requested the OP for giving the said benefits but it asked him to wait for 15 days. It is further stated that at the time of delivery of the new car, no bill/invoice etc. was handed over to him rather the same were handed over after 15-20 days of delivery of car, to the tune of Rs.7,25.092/-.It is stated that he made the payment of Rs.6,39,077/- towards car invoice, Rs.46,251/- as R.C.charges, Rs.24,995/- as insurance charges , Rs.2105/-, as accessory and Rs.9073/- for extended warranty, totaling Rs.7,21,501/-.It is further stated, that after receipt of the bill/invoice, it came to his notice that the car was financed from HDFC bank instead of SBOP as committed with him by the OP as the rate of interest charged by HDFC bank is @10.81% per annum, i.e. 0.36% more than the SBOP. He was also to pay Rs.9140/- as additional loan processing fee charges. Aggrieved from the act and conduct of the OP he got served a legal notice upon it but to no effect. Even the invoice issued by the OP did not contain discounts column whereas the same has been given in the invoice issued by other dealer of MSIL. The OP is not only deficient in providing service but it also committed unfair trade practice, which caused mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OP appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable under the Act and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is denied that the complainant visited the show room of the OP on 25.7.2015, rather he visited the OP on 31.7.2015 and purchased Swift VDI car vide invoice No.VSL15000125 dated 31.7.2015. It is stated that the complainant himself had signed the loan papers and the printed performas of HDFC Bank. It is denied that the complainant had obtained the exchange offer of the MSIL rather he had sold the same to outside dealer. No legal notice was received by it.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the comkplainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C18 and closed the evidence.
Sh.Jaswinder Singh Gill, Operation Head of the op tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OPA, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that first grievance of the complainant is that at the time of purchase of the car in question the OP had not given him the benefits as per the offered scheme. To this effect, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that since the complainant had not sold his old car to it, therefore, he was not entitled to get exchange bonus . Even he is not entitled to get Rs.5000/-because it was not shown that he was having an old Maruti 800 car. Therefore, this grievance of the complainant is baseless.
From the copy of the advertisement, Ex.C16, it is evident that OP offered to give exchange bonus + Rs.5000/- on old Maruti 800 + 2gm gold coin. It may be stated that the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that it had sold his old car to the OP .Thus, in the absence of any documentary proof, the complainant is not entitled to get exchange bonus. Even the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that he was having an old Maruti 800 car. Thus, he is also not entitled to get Rs.5000/-as per the offer. Admittedly, complainant has purchased the car in question within the offer period, therefore, he is entitled to get a 2gms gold coin. However, the OP has not placed on record any document to show that it had given the gold coin to the complainant as per the offer, at the time of purchase of the car by him. The complainant is thus entitled to get 2gms gold coin as per the offer. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the 2nd grievance of the complainant is that the OP had charged from him excess amount than the actual due amount . He further submitted that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,25,092/- as is evident from the receipts Exs.C1 to C4.From the invoice dated 31.7.2015,Ex.C11, it is evident that the Ex-showroom price of the car in question inclusive of all taxes was Rs.6,39,077/-. From the registration details, Ex.C12, it is evident that the registration charges of the car in question was of Rs.46,251/-. From the copy of certificate –cum- policy schedule , Ex.C13, it is evident that insurance charges of the said vehicle was of Rs.24,995/- . From the counter sale retail cash memo dated 31.7.2015, it is apparent that OP had charged Rs.2105/-for the accessories, purchased by the complainant. As per these documents, the complainant was to pay in total a sum of Rs.7,12,428/- (i.e. Rs.6,39,077 + Rs.46251/- + Rs.24995/- + Rs.2105/-) to the OP, whereas the OP had charged a sum of Rs.7,25,092/-from him , as referred above. In this way, the OP has charged a sum of Rs.12,664/- in excess from the complainant. No justification has been given by the ld. counsel for the OP as to why it had charged a sum of Rs.7,25.092 instead of 7,12,428/-. Since the OP had charged Rs.12,664/- in excess from the complainant as such it is liable to refund the same to the complainant. The ld. counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the 3rd grievance of the complainant is that the rate of interest of SBOP was less than the rate of interest of HDFC bank but the OP forced him to take the loan from HDFC bank only and as such he has to pay 0.36% more rate of interest than the SBOP and he was forced to pay Rs.9140/-towards loan processing fee and prayed that OP may kindly be directed to refund the amount which he had to pay in excess while obtaining loan. In reply to this submission, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the complainant had availed the loan from HDFC bank on his own and had signed the loan papers with his free will and OP has no role to play and the complainant cannot blame it if, the said bank has charged more rate of interest or charged any processing fee. It may be stated that the complainant was at liberty to take the loan at his wish from any financial institute/bank. Even otherwise there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that OP forced the complainant to take the loan from HDFC Bank. Thus, we do not find any force in this submission of the ld. counsel for the complainant. Hence rejected.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:
- To pay Rs.12,664/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7%
per annum from the date of purchase of the car i.e. 31.7.2015
till its realization;
2. To handover a 2gms gold coin to the complainant;
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony
and physical harassment caused to the complainant;
4. To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses
The OP is further directed to comply the order within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order . 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:10.8. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
