Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/274

Gurmukh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motor Company - Opp.Party(s)

Amarjit singh Adv.

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 23.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   24.10.2016 

 

Gurmukh Singh aged 35 years son of S.Prem Singh, resident of village Bullewal, Tehsil & District Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Hyundai Motor Company, registered office at Irrugattu Kottai, National Highway No.4, Sri Perumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2.M/s.Goyal Automotive Ltd., village Jugiana, G.T.Road, Ludhiana-141017 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant                     :          Sh.Amarjit Singh, Advocate

For OP1                          :          Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate

For OP2                         :         sh.Rohit Mehta, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant on inspiration and allurement of OP2, purchased Hyundai Verna Ex 1.6 CRDI car bearing engine No.300743 and chassis No.148297 with temporary registration No.PB-08-BU-6320 on payment of total sale price of vehicle through cheques. This car was purchased in exchange of the earlier car of Hyundai company itself and that is why, the complainant was disclosed by Mr.Harpreet Singh, the Sales Manager of OP2 that he(complainant) will get Rs.15,000/- as exchange  price, credit for which, either will be given in cash to the complainant or the same will be deducted from the total sale price of the new vehicle. Even offer was given to the complainant qua providing of registration certificate free of costs. Said Harpreet Singh took the complainant to Mr.Bhupinder Singh Bawa, alleged to be the General Manager of OP2 concern and said General Manager also reaffirmed the version of Harpreet Singh qua offers pointed above including that of accessories. The cheques issued by the complainant in account of OP2 were duly credited as revealed by copy of statement of account of OP2. Complainant claims that no amount was outstanding towards him, but later on employees of OP2 started demanding the registration charges from the complainant. Complainant paid those charges even without further questioning. When the complainant after reasonable time enquired about the registration certificate from the employees of OP2, then they started demanding an amount of Rs.20,000/- more by claiming that as registration charges have been increased by the Government and as such, complainant will have to shell out the demanded amount of Rs.20,000/-. Later on Mr.Harpreet Singh and Mr.Bhupinder Singh Bawa disclosed the complainant that exchange price offer cannot be passed to the complainant, but he will have to pay Rs.15,000/- more to  OP2. Complainant objected to the same by claiming that he has already paid sufficient amount as per the offers given to him. It is claimed that employees of OP2 in connivance with each other insisting the complainant to pay more amount and claiming that they will not hand over the original RC unless those payments made. When the complainant contacted employees of OP2, then they refused to accede the genuine requests put forth by the complainant and refused to release the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. Without registration certificate, plying of the vehicle in question on the road is   not possible legally at all and as such, complainant has suffered at the hands of employees of OP2. Legal notice dated 17.3.2015 was served by the complainant through counsel, but frivolous reply thereto has been sent by the Ops. Ops after deducting amount of Rs.15,000/- sent cheque of Rs.42,700/- to the complainant, but after retaining the registration amount with them for a period of more than one year. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for issuing directions to Ops to hand over the original registration certificate of the vehicle in question without demanding any further charges. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1 lac even claimed for the adoption of unfair trade practice by Ops.

2.                In written statement filed by Op1, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is frivolous, misconceived and filed by concealing the facts. Besides, it is claimed that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against OP1. Op1 being manufacturer of the vehicle has no role in retail sale of the car because dealing by OP1 is held with the dealer on principal to principal basis. It is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer to sell the car. Liability of OP1 as manufacturer is limited to the extent of warranty obligations alone. Title of the Hyundai vehicles passes to the concerned dealer, the moment it is put on a common carrier. OP1        has no role in registration and insurance of the vehicle. No allegations qua performance of the car manufactured by OP1 levelled and as such, complaint against OP1 is not maintainable. No deficiency in service attributed to OP1 at all and nor any allegations of indulgence of unfair trade practice levelled against OP1. In view of this, it is claimed that the complainant do not disclose any cause of action against OP1. Grant of exchange bonus is subject to certain terms and conditions to be fulfilled by the complainant. As per allegations, complainant failed to fulfill the mandatory conditions and that is why he is not entitled to exchange bonus benefit. As per exchange bonus claim policy, documents like invoice of the new car, registration certificate of the old car in the name of customer before transfer, registration certificate of the old car after transfer in the name of the purchaser other than in the name of the blood relative of the customer and record of transfer of ownership fee receipt, is required to be produced. All exchange claim will be valid only if punching done by the selling dealer in the centralized system i.e.Dealer Management System. Exchange claims were valid only if the claims along with necessary documents received by OP1 within 120 days from the date of the sale from the concerned selling dealer i.e. OP2. Exchange discount is applicable only if the old car is transferred upto 30 days before or upto 105 days after new car invoice confirmation date. Documents pertaining to exchange bonus or loyalty bonus was never received by OP1 either from the complainant or from OP2 within the stipulated period as per terms and conditions of the scheme. There was no entry in complainant’s name in the GDMS( Dealer Management System) record and as such, entitlement of the complainant to get exchange bonus is not there, particularly when no such permission was sought from OP1. All the dealers were explained about the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus claim and they in turn required to explain the same to the customers. Dispute   of the complainant pertains to registration certificate, which is the obligation to be undertaken by the OP2. So, claim in the complaint put forth against OP2 and not against OP1. Other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                In written statement filed by OP2, it is pleaded interalia as if the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complaint has been filed just for abusing the process of law and harassing OP2. It is claimed that the complainant has not supplied the true and genuine information to this Forum intentionally. Complainant purchased the car. Company never required to provide free registration and free accessories to boost up the sales. Complainant himself approached for purchasing the Verna car from OP2 on 5.1.2014. At that time, the complainant was informed that he got loyalty bonus, but not the exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/-, subject to the conditions of providing RC of the old car; valid insurance of the old car; PAN Card and driving license of the person, in whose name the old car is there. These documents were required to be provided within 30 days from the purchase of the car, but those documents were never given to OP1 and nor to OP2. Op2 was not able to arrange loyalty bonus in view of the non supply of the documents by the complainant within the stipulated period of 30 days. Admittedly, at the time of purchase of the car, complainant paid Rs.42,700/- as part payment for preparing the registration certificate of the car. Complainant assured OP2 that he will make the remaining payment in respect of the registration certificate within 2 days. After two days, the complainant did not make the remaining payment for preparing the RC and thereafter, employees of OP2 requested the complainant many times to make the remaining payment of RC charges. However, complainant kept on procrastinating the matter for about 1 year and 3 months. Complainant did not pay the remaining amount of RC to the OP2, due to which, OP2 could not supply the RC of the car. Complainant for harassing the OP2 sent a false and frivolous notice. Op2 in order to avoid any litigation, returned the amount of Rs.42,700/- through cheque No.007833 dated 12.3.2015 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Near Manju Cinema, Ludhiana through registered post dated 24.3.2015. That cheque was returned with the remarks “no person of such name is residing in village Bullewal”. Thereafter, notice dated 8.4.2015 was sent to the counsel of complainant, but no reply was received. The complaint alleged to be filed after concocting a false and frivolous story. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that false and frivolous notices were sent by the complainant to Op2. Those notices were duly replied.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and thereafter, counsel for the complainant closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Manish Kumar, Deputy Manager, Legal & Secretarial of Hyundai Motor India Limited and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Love Goyal, Managing Director of OP2 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and then closed the evidence.

7.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

8.                From the pleadings of the complaint as well as from the contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant and invoice Ex.C1 as well as sale certificate Ex.C2, it is made out that the complainant purchased new car from OP2 on 5.01.2014. Invoice for an amount of Rs.9,84,767/- Ex.C1 was issued by OP2 and as such, it is obvious that OP2 dealt with the complainant as customer. As dealings between the complainant and OP2 were there and as such, complainant is customer of OP2 in respect of the obligation of providing free accessories, exchange/loyalty bonus etc. OP1, being manufacturer is nothing to do with the transaction of providing registration certificate to the complainant. Rather, as per notification of Transport Department of Punjab Government (photostat copy of which has been produced during the course of arguments by the complainant), responsibility of providing registration certificate to the customer is of the dealer. In view of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, practice of issuance of temporary registration certificate required to be discontinued as per this notification. Thus, regular registration number of the vehicle to be provided by the dealer to the customer through online system as per this notification of Transport Department of Punjab Government. So, in view of the allegations levelled in the complaint and in view of the terms of this notification of Punjab Government, it is obvious that liability of providing regular registration number through online system was of OP2, the dealer. Deficiency in service pleaded in the complaint in respect of non issue of registration certificate of the vehicle in question, despite acceptance of registration charges by OP2. So, certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OP1 has force that allegations of manufacturing defect not at all levelled and as such, claim is not stacked in respect of any deficiency in service against Op1. Rather, deficiency in service in respect of non providing the registration certificate pleaded on the part of OP2 and as such, complaint against OP1 certainly is not maintainable and same merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.

9.                In written statement filed by OP2 or in affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Love Goyal, Managing Director of OP2, it is admitted that complainant purchased Hyundai car from OP2 on 5.1.2014. Bone of contention remains as to whether the complainant entitled for loyalty bonus/exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- from OP2 or not? Copies of terms and conditions of Grant of exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- was to be provided by    OP2 to the complainant but same has not been produced on record by any of the parties and as such, this Forum unable to comment exactly as to what were the terms and conditions, on which, said bonus was to be provided. Though, estimate quoting the offers showing the proper price and benefits always prepared by the dealer for disclosing the customers,the free offer benefits, but no such estimate of offer or of the price has been produced on record by any of the parties. However, sale certificate Ex.C2 with respect to the new car issued by OP2 in favour of the complainant produced on record to show that new car of Verna make CRDI SX 1.6 BSIV Pure white colour, was delivered to the complainant by Op2 on 5.1.2014. Copy of insurance cover note Ex.C3 along with registration certificate Ex.C4 has also been produced on record by the complainant. Factum of sale of the new car in exchange of the old one not denied by OP2 in written statement or in affidavit Ex.RA2 of Managing Director of OP2.

10.              Copies of statement of account of OP2 concern with respect of sale of the car in question to complainant has been produced on record as Ex.C5 and Ex.C6. Perusal of Ex.C6 reveals that loyalty claim of Rs.15,000/- was rejected and that is why debit entry in that respect incorporated in Ex.C6 by showing that cash in hand in account of the complainant available with OP2 as Rs.42,700/-. Ex.C5, copy of statement of account further establishes as if Rs.4,50,000/- was received in cash by the OP2 from the complainant on 30.12.2013, but the new Verna car was sold to the complainant for Rs.9,84,767/-, which in fact is the sale price shown in the invoice Ex.C1. Rs.20,000/- on 21.1.2014, but Rs.5 lac on 24.1.2014 shown to be credited in account of OP2 through cheque of HDFC Bank Limited transactions. Rs.20,000/- debited through entry of 28.1.2014, but Rs.20,000/- shown as cash in hand through CR No.3894 against entry dated 18.2.2014 in Ex.C5. Amount of accessories debited as Rs.233/- after crediting the amount of Rs.9,90,000/- against debit amount of Rs.10,05,000/-, closing balance shown to be standing as Rs.15,000/-. Though    specific mention regarding charging of Rs.42,700/- as registration certificate charges not made in Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, but it is admitted in written statement filed by OP2 that amount of Rs.42,700/- was deposited as part payment for preparation of registration certificate of new purchased car by the complainant. So, it is admitted by Op2 in the written statement as well as through affidavit Ex.RA2 of Managing Director that amount of Rs.42,700/- as cash paid as RC charges by the complainant to OP2. In view of the notification of Punjab Government referred above, liability to issue the regular registration number through online system is of the dealer, it is obvious that Rs.42,700/- virtually was accepted by Op2 from the complainant as registration charges at the initial stages itself. If complainant after depositing of this amount of Rs.42,700/- as part payment of the registration charges(as alleged by OP2) did not call upon OP2 through writing to issue the registration certificate, despite that OP2 even has not sent any intimation to the complainant as to why the registration certificate not provided despite charging of Rs.42,700/-. However, as per averment of the affidavit EX.CA of complainant, he kept on contacting the employee of OP2 to issue the registration certificate, but they demanded the registration fee by saying that registration charges has been increased by the Government. No notice of such increase of registration charges ever shown to be sent by the OP2 to the complainant and as such, fault lay with OP2 in retaining the amount of Rs.42,700/- for period of 1 year and 3 months because the sale and delivery of the new vehicle took place on 5.1.2014, but the amount of Rs.42,700/- returned through cheque Ex.C11 of date 12.3.2015 only. In view of circular of Punjab Government referred above, responsibility to provide new registration certificate through online system was of OP2, which in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 must have been supplied within 30 days from the date of purchase, but that obligation has not been performed by OP2 and as such, deficiency in service certainly is there on the part of OP2. If really the registration charges would have been increased as claimed by OP2, then why notice in writing not sent to the complainant for depositing the balance registration charges. Non issue of notice until sending of cheque/DD Ex.C11 enough to establish that OP2 retained the amount of Rs.42,700/- in illegal way which was earlier got deposited by the complainant as registration charges.That illegal retaining was for more than 1 year, so certainly the complainant suffered due to non receipt of the registration certificate of the new purchased car.

11.              If dispute regarding loyalty bonus or exchange bonus qua amount of Rs.15,000/- there, then recovery of the same from the complainant could have taken place by way of issue of notice by OP2 to the complainant. No such notice shown to be sent to the complainant and as such, virtually amount of Rs.42,700/- retained illegally by OP2 for one year and three months at least without disclosing about the rejection of the claim.

12.              Ex.R3 is the photostat copy of registered cover sent by OP2 to the complainant, but the same returned with the remarks that “ complainant is not residing at village Bullewal”. However in insurance cover note Ex.C3 as well as in sale certificate Ex.C2 and invoice Ex.C1, complainant shown to resident of village Bullewal, Tehsil Samrala, Ludhiana and as such, certainly submissions advanced by OP2 has force that true and correct address of the complainant was not provided and registered cover Ex.R3 sent to him received back/returned to OP2. That registered cover contains the cheque for an amount of Rs.42,700/- and same was sent through registered   post on 14.3.2015 as per allegations levelled in para no.2 of written statement under head ‘preliminary objections’ of OP2. So, contents of Ex.R3 read with contents of written statement establishes that cheque of amount of Rs.42,700/- was not received by the complainant in the first instance. Copy of notice dated 8.4.2015 sent by OP2 to the complainant has not been produced, albeit postal receipt Ex.R2 has been produced to show as if the same notice sent to Sh.Amarjit Singh, counsel for the complainant. Mere production of postal receipt Ex.R2 does not proved as to what notice was actually  sent by Op2 to the complainant. As claim for exchange bonus repudiated by OP2 due to non submission of documents like registration certificate of the old car or valid insurance cover note of the old car etc., within the stipulated period of 30 days and allegations levelled in written statement as well as through affidavit Ex.RA2 are correct because the complainant not mentioning as to on what date he supplied the documents of the RC of the old car or of valid insurance or of PAN Card or of driving license and as such, complainant certainly not entitled to exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/-. So, virtually less payment of Rs.15,000/- has been made by the complainant, even though he paid due amount of registration charges of Rs.42,700/- to OP2 and as such, while passing the final orders these facts has to be taken into consideration. As original cheque of Rs.42,700/-(copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C11) available with the complainant is a fact admitted by the counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments and as such, complainant will have         to surrender the original unencashed cheque of Rs.42,700/- to OP2 within the stipulated period. After receipt of that unencashed cheque, OP2 duty bound to provide the registration certificate of the new sold car in question through invoice Ex.C1 within the specified period. Complainant suffered mental harassment due to non receipt of registration certificate for more than one year and as such, he is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses. As complainant kept mum for 1 year and 3 months before issue of notices Ex.C7 and Ex.C10 through postal receipts Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and as such, fault also is there on the part of complainant in not procuring the registration certificate at earliest, despite the fact that legal obligation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,is on all the owners to fetch the RC with permanent registration number within 30 days of purchase of the vehicle. As after paying Rs.42,700/-, complainant was not disclosed as to what more amount he is required to pay for getting the registration certificate and as such, fault lay with OP2 in not supplying the information in that respect at earliest. Admission of OP2 enough to establish that Rs.42,700/- paid by the complainant to OP2 on account of registration charges. Keeping of amount of Rs.42,700/- by OP2 for long period of 1 year and 3 months without taking action in mater of supplying of registration certificate is an act of deficiency in service on the part of OP2. Even the same is an unfair trade practice because if the seller accepts the amount of registration charges, then it is his duty to provide the registration certificate as per requirement of notification issued by the Government of Punjab though Transport Department as referred above.

13.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that complainant will surrender the original unencashed cheque of Rs.42,700/-(copy of which produced on record as Ex.C11) to OP2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and even he will pay Rs.15,000/- more to OP2 within that period and thereafter, OP2 will get issue the registration certificate of sold car in question through invoice Ex.C1, within 30 days from receipt of above referred amount. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against Op2 only. Complaint against OP1 is dismissed. Compliance of above said directions qua awarded compensation and litigation costs be made by Op2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

14.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.10.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.