Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/251

Shekhar Plaha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Kanwar Navdeep Singh

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR
(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

                            C.C. No.  251/14.11.2014
                                            Decided on :  11.03.2015

Shekhar Plaha s /o Sham Sunder R/o B-20/101, Preet Nagar, Hoshiarpur.

                                    Complainant                        vs.

1.Hyundai Motor India Engineering Pvt. Ltd., North Regional Office, ADD DLF Tower, B, 3RD Floor, Rajiv Gandhi, IT Park, Chandigarh-160101 through its Manager/Head.
2.The Proprietor, Verma Motors Pvt. Ltd., Tanda Road, Outside Octroi, Hoshiarpur
3.Ankush Bhargav, Sales Manager, Verma Motors Pvt. Ltd. Tanda Road, Outside Octroi, Hoshiaipur
                                    Opposite parties

 Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Naveen Puri,President.
              Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary, Member.
              Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member. 

Present:      Kanwar Navdeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.
             Sh.Gursagar Singh , counsel for OP No.1.
            OP Nos.2,3 – ex parte.

ORDER 

 NAVEEN PURI, PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986  against the OPs  to deliver the registration certificate (RC) of the new car to him without claiming any excess amount and to pay  Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and  Rs. 15000/- at litigation expenses.
2.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a new Verna Car 1.6SX having Engine No. D4FBEM193320 Chassis No. MALCU41ULEM179505 from OP No. 2, agency of Verna Hyundai,  on 28-09-2014.  OP No. 3 is a sales manager who works under the instructions of OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 is North Regional Office. It is averred that complainant approached OP No. 3 on 22-09-2014 for booking of Verna 1.6SX car, Sales Manager of OP No. 2.  The OP No.3 gave the detail price of car Verna as Rs.10,64,591/- as full and final as road price also including the cost of registration fee as Rs.57,079/- in the detailed amount and stated that the RC (Registration Certificate) will be issued by OPs within 10-15 days. The complainant agreed upon the quotations given by OP No. 3 and paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash as booking amount on 22-09-2014. OP No. 3 also gave the detail of the price on road car on the back of the visiting car issued by him in which he also deducted Rs.20,000/- from total amount which was paid by the complainant as booking amount and showed the remaining amount  of Rs.10,44,591/- to be paid by the complainant. That on 28.09.2014, the complainant paid the full and final amount and took the delivery of car. The insurance policy schedule was also issued by OP No. 3 which was totally free. The original bill of the car  alongwith Form CR Temporary were kept by OPs for submitting the same before the District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur for issuance of RC. The complainant visited the office of     OPs     after   ten    days and   asked for the RC who demanded 
Rs.16,777/- from the complainant as the excess amount of tax. The complainant told that he had deposited the full and final payment before them and now he  is not to give even a single penny  as they have already received the amount of Rs.57,079 as fee for RC on  28-09-2014 but of no use. The demand of Rs.16,777/- is illegal. The complainant also issued legal notice dated 14-10-2014 to the OPs which was replied on 18-10-2014 but did not issue the RC. By demanding the excess amount of Rs. 16,777/- for RC,  the OPs have rendered  deficient services. Hence prayed for delivery of RC without claiming any excess amount and for compensation and litigation costs.
3.         On notice,   OP No.1 filed contested written statement  taking routine preliminary objections.  On merits, it is replied that retail sale of the vehicle is strictly inter-se complainant and concerned selling dealer i.e. OP No.2. It is further replied  that answering OP operates with all its dealers on  principal to principal basis. The Answering OP is a not a party to the retail sale of vehicles and merely supplies the vehicles to the appropriate dealer at a mentioned price who further sells it to the customers as per their demands.  OP No.1 being the manufacturer has no obligation to provide any services to the complainant except its warranty obligation alone and error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sale of the car on the part of the dealer cannot be fastened upon it. It is further replied that the obligation to pay the taxes on the vehicle is the sole responsibility of the person/entity purchasing the vehicle and not the obligation of the answering OP.  The reply to the legal notice was given by Verma Motors to the complainant explaining reason of delay and increased rate of tax by government authority.  Answering OP has not provided any deficient service to the complainant in any manner. 
4.         Registered notices were sent to OP Nos. 2 and 3. As they did not turn up despite service, they were proceeded ex parte on 29.12.2014.
5.         Both the parties led the evidence.
6.         We have heard  learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1  and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.
7.         From the pleading and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant purchased a new Verna car having Engine No. D4FBEM193320  and Chassis No. MALCU41ULEM179505 from OP No. 2 on 28/09/2014. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of booking of the above said car, OP no.3  gave the detail price of car Verna as Rs. 10,64,591/- being the full and final on road price. It also included the cost of RC amounting to Rs. 57,079/-. That on 28/09/2014, the complainant paid the full and final price of Rs. 10,44,591/- (Rs. 10,64,591/- minus Rs. 20,000/- booking charges) and took the delivery of the car. It is the case of the complainant that original bill and Form CR Temporary were kept by the OPs for submitting the same before DTO, Hoshiarpur for issuance of RC of the car. The complainant has further stated that the OPs  have further demanded Rs. 16,777/- from him as the excess amount of Tax when in fact, they have received the amount of             Rs. 57,079/- as fee for RC at the time of purchase of car on 28/09/2014 and as such the demand of Rs. 16,777/- is an illegal demand . We find that complainant has grievance against OP no. 2 & 3 only and OP no. 1 has been impleaded being the manufacturer of product only. OP no. 1 has submitted that being manufacturer of Hyundai Car,  its liability, if any, is limited to its warranty obligations only. It has further argued that  error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales of the car on the part of dealer cannot be fastened upon it. The OP no. 2 & 3 despite service of summons have not appeared and have chosen to remain absent thereby giving an implied consent/admission to the facts alleged in the complaint. We find there is merit in the present complaint and hence we partly allow this complaint and order the OP no. 2 to deliver the RC of the car in question to the complainant without claiming any amount as alleged and further to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation. The compliance be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the OP no.2.
8.         File be consigned to the record room. 
Announced. 
    11.03.2015                          (Naveen Puri)
                                                          President

            (Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary)       (Mrs. Sushma Handoo)  
          Member                               Member

MK