Punjab

Moga

CC/15/84

Malkit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors India Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vishal Jain

17 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                C.C. No. 84 of 2015

                                                                        Instituted on : 19.10.2015

                                                                          Decided on : 17.02.2016

 

Malkiat Singh aged about 68 years son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, resident of House No. 148, Park Avenue, Near Sandhu Palace, Faridkot, Tehsil & District Faridkot.

 

                                                                               …….. Complainant

                               Versus

 

1.Hyundai Motors India Limited, Registered Office at Plot No. H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, IRRUNGATTUKOTTAI, SRIPERUMBUDURTLUK, Tamilnadu, through its Director/Manager or responsible person.

 

2.Godawari Motors Private Limited, Opposite Focal Point, Ferozepur Road, Moga, through its Manager or responsible person.

 

                                                                             ……… Opposite Parties

 

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

 

          Coram : Sh. S.S. Panesar, President,

                         Smt. Vinod Bala, Member,

                         Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

          Present: Sh. Visual Jain, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                         Sh. Maninder Vohra, Adv.Cl. for opposite party No. 1.

                         Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv.Cl. for opposite party No. 2.

 

ORDER:

 

(Per S.S. Panesar, President)

 

1.       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against Hyundai Motors India Limited, Registered Office at Plot No. H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, IRRUNGATTUKOTTAI, SRIPERUMBUDURTLUK, Tamilnadu, through its Director/Manager or responsible person and another (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for directing them to pay an amount of Rs. 16,000/- paid by him due to the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties to the District Transport Officer, Faridkot/Moga and the excess charges received by the opposite party No. 2 illegally and arbitrarily from him in respect of purchase of one Car Model i20 Asta 1.4 Colour White manufactured by opposite party No. 1 and delivered by opposite party No. 2 being the dealer of opposite  party No.1 and also interest on the amount which was retained by him for three months for applying the R.C. of the above said vehicle, which was delivered to the complainant on 6.10.2014 and also to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by him at the hands of opposite parties jointly and severally besides Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant wanted to purchase a new brand car for his family use having Model i20
Asta 1.4 make Hyundai Motors manufactured by OP No. 1 and got booked the same with OP No. 2, who issued quotation dated 25.9.2014 to his son, wherein they have mentioned the Ex-Showroom price i.e.  Rs. 7,83,671/- and insurance charges, road tax and registration charges, number plate charges, accessories cost, total to the tune of Rs. 8,53,000/- and the same was delivered  OP No. 2 also received Rs. 20,000/- as booking amount and  issued receipt dated 25.9.2014. Thereafter, on 6.10.2014, OP No. 2 delivered the car to the complainant after receiving Rs. 8,33,000/- and also issued retail invoice, insurance cover and delivery slip, which includes the insurance charges, R.C. charges, tax charges and other charges as mentioned in his booking form and also assured the complainant that R.C number has been applied online by punching the same, as it is very much necessary. OP No. 2 also issued temporary certificate of registration to the complainant valid for the period 6.10.2014 to 5.11.2014 for one month only. Thereafter, a number of times the complainant and his son contacted OP No. 2 on mobile No. 95015-66444 & 99155-87049 and demanded provisional registration certificate. Again, complainant visited the office of OP No. 2 on 18.11.2014 and requested to provide the P.R.C. as he is unable to run the vehicle on the road without RC, but OP NO. 2 instead of supplying the same again issued temporary certificate of registration valid from 18.11.2014 to 17.12.2014. OP No. 2 called the complainant on 5.12.2014 and again received Rs. 12,500/- from him on the pretext that government has extended the rate of tax from 6% to 8%. The act of keeping the amount of Rs. 52,000/- with them without any reason and not applying the R.C amounts to a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant visited a number of times to the branch office of opposite party No. 2 for settling the matter, but of no use, hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed reply, stating therein that the complainant has alleged delay on the part of OP No. 2 in getting the vehicle registered and he has to pay extra amount of Rs. 16,000/- towards registration of the vehicle and there is no specific allegation against the answering OP. The answering OP has enquired about facts of the case from OP No. 2. It is submitted that on the basis of available information from OP No.2 that complainant has purchased vehicle from them on 6.10.2014 but in the meantime tax rate was increased by transport authority from 6% to 8% w.e.f. 7.10.2014 and on the same day transport authority blocked the online site and tax collected from complainant could not be deposited. When site opened tax amount @ 8% was required to be deposited. The transport authority gives 30 days time of registration of vehicle and in the meantime temporary registration certificate was issued to complainant by OP No. 2. It is further submitted that the answering OP operates with all its dealers on principal-to-principal basis and errors/omissions, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. It is also submitted that the liability of replying OP being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone. Admittedly, there is no allegation relating to performance of the Car manufactured by the replying OP. Hence, it has been prayed that the complaint against OP No. 1 may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.       Opposite party No.2 also appeared through counsel and filed separate reply taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency on their part; that website of the RTO for online transaction was closed on 7.10.2014 and was opened on 8.10.2014 and at that time registration rate of the vehicle was increased from 6% to 8% and its due information was given to the complainant telephonically.  Moreover, at the time of sale of car the complainant was duly informed regarding the increase of rate of R.C and he could take his own choice number of car, so replying OP did not apply the RC on that date. On merits, it is submitted that the replying OP has charged Rs. 12,500/- extra on account of  increase in R.C rate from 6% to 8%, which was paid to RTO Department. Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

5.       In order to prove the case, complainant Malkit Singh appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint.  The complainant also produced on record copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-16 and closed the evidence. 

6.      In rebuttal, the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Manish Kumar, Dy. Manager (Legal & Secretarial), Hyundai Motors India Limited, Ex. OP1/1, whereas, opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Surinder Sharma, Branch Manager, Godawari Motors Pvt. Ltd., Moga, Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence.

7.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.       Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that it is not disputed that the complainant purchased a brand new Car Model i20 Asta 1.4 make  Hyundi Motors  manufactured by OP No. 1 from OP No. 2 after paying all the charges inclusive of price, registration charges, road tax, insurance charges etc. on 6.10.2014.  The Registration Certificate was to be got prepared by the opposite parties from Registering Authority, but,  however, opposite parties did not care to get Registration Certificate issued  in time and on 05.12.2014, the opposite parties further charged a sum of Rs. 12,500/- vide receipt (Ex. C-13) from the complainant by contending that registration charges have been enhanced by the State Government.  But, however, there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties, because they did not apply for registration of the car in dispute immediately on receipt of full payment. The enhancement in the registration charges took place vide Notification dated 7^th October, 2014, copy where is Ex. C16, whereas the entire payment was received by the opposite parties on 6.10.2014.  It is the case of the opposite parties that Registration Certificate in dispute could not be applied, as there was Server down of R.T.O. on 6.10.2014 and 7.10.2014. However, the complainant has adduced on record document - Ex. C15 i.e. the information received under RTI Act, 2005 from the Public Information Officer-cum-District Transport Officer, Ludhiana and a perusal whereof shows that 100 odd registration certificates were applied on 06.10.2014, while 552 registration certificates were applied on 07.10.2014.  This shows that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties in not applying for getting the registration certificate for the vehicle of the complainant on 06.10.2014 or 07.10.2014.  Since, the negligence of the opposite parties is writ large on the face of it and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 12,500/- along with up to date interest as well as compensation for mental tension and physical agony from the opposite parties and it is requested that the complaint may be allowed accordingly.

9.       However, on the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties have vehemently contended that there is absolutely no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The amount of Rs. 12,500/- had to be charged extra from the complainant on account of the fact that there was an increase in the registration fee, promulgated by the State of Punjab vide Notification dated 7^th October, 2014.  On earlier occasion, the Server of R.T.O. was down and no application for the issue of registration certificate could be submitted.  No fault can be attributed to the opposite parties on account of the extra amount charged to the tune of Rs. 12,500/- on account of enhancement of registration charges.  The complainant did not raise any hue or cry at the time of making the payment, which amounts to acquiescence on the part of the complainant. It is now too late for the complainant to file the claim vide instant complaint.  The complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law.  It is, therefore, requested that the complaint may be dismissed being meritless.

10.     We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions.

11.     There is no dispute that the complainant purchased a brand new Car Model i20 Asta 1.4 make  Hyundi Motors  manufactured by OP No. 1 from OP No. 2 on payment of Rs. 8,33,000/- inclusive of registration charges, road tax, insurance charges etc. It is also not disputed that registration charges were enhanced by the State of Punjab vide Notification dated 7^th October, 2014 (Ex. C16).  It is also not disputed that the entire payment was made by the complainant as early as on 6.10.2014 and there was ample time for OP No. 2 to apply for registration certificate immediately.  The contention that the Server was down on 06.10.2014 & 07.10.2014 and, therefore, the requisite formalities for getting the registration certificate could not be performed, is also without merit because the complainant  has produced on record document (Ex. C15)  i.e. the information received under RTI Act, 2005 from the Public Information Officer-cum-District Transport Officer, Ludhiana, and a perusal whereof clearly shows that the Server was not down on 06.10.2014 and  07.10.2014, as wrongly claimed by the opposite parties. It is not denied that an amount of Rs. 12,500/- has been overcharged by the opposite parties from the complainant for getting the registration certificate issued in his favour on account of alleged enhancement of registration charges.  Since, registration certificates numbering 100 odd and 552 have been applied on 06.10.2014 and 07.10.2014 respectively, therefore, forbearance in applying the case of the complainant for issuing registration certificate, is nothing but a patent   negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  In such a situation, to get further amount of Rs. 12,500/- on account of enhanced registration fee amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  No plea of acquiescence is available to the opposite parties to defeat the claim of the complainant because the Consumer Protection Act debars the use of unfair trade practices. Blatant negligence on the part of the opposite parties does not permit  them to retain the amount illegally obtained from the complainant. 

12.     Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 12,500/- to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to Rs. 3,000/- as damages on account of compensation, mental agony and physical pain, besides, a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  If  the payment of the awarded amount is not made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, the complainant shall also be entitled to get the awarded amount recovered with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the order till full and final realization. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.

17.02.2016

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)        (S.S. Panesar)

                      Member                        Member                President

 

vs