DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/213/2022
Date of Institution: 19.09.2022
Date of Decision: 09.12.2024
Himanshu Bansal son of Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal resident of Lakhi Colony, Street No.2, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab through his General Power of Attorney Naresh Kumar Bansal son of Sohan Lal son of Brij Lal resident of Lakhi Colony, Street No.2, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Hyundai Motors Industries Ltd., having its Registered Office at Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumdudur, Taluk Kanchipuram, District Tamil Nadu-602117 through its Managing Director.
2. Park Hyundai Amar Parkash Agro (I) Ltd.), Jind Road, After IOC Depot, village Kamomazra Kalan, Sangrur-148001 through its Authorized Signatory /Manager.
3. Park Hyundai (A Unit of Amar Parkash Agro (I) Ltd.) Baja Khana Road, Barnala through its Authorized Signatory /Branch Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Rajesh Mittal Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Puneet Pabby Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. N.K. Garg Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 2 & 3.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Hyundai Motors Industries Ltd., having its Registered Office at Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumdudur, Taluk Kanchipuram, District Tamil Nadu-602117 through its Managing Director & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that opposite party No.1 is engaged in manufacturing of four wheelers and other related products i.e. Cars, SUVS etc. and selling thereof through its dealers and opposite party No. 2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party no.1 and opposite party No.3 is the branch of dealership of opposite party No.2 and are responsible for sale, service and spares of Hyundai vehicles. It is alleged that the complainant intended to purchase CRETA 1.5 CRDi MT SX(O) and visited office of opposite party No.2 and they asked the complainant that there is a waiting period of approx. 2 months for the delivery of said vehicle, as such complainant booked said vehicle through online process by paying a booking amount of Rs.25000/- for an amount of ex-showroom price Rs.16,37,000/- on 20.12.2021 vide reference No. ORD2021122019061503 (ORD2021122019061503-72294) and the quotation was successfully generated by the system. It is further alleged that since a lapse of period of about 05 months the complainant did not get the delivery of the vehicle, as such the complainant sent a number of emails to opposite party No.1 thereby inquired regarding the delivery of his vehicle. The complainant also sought the information from opposite party No. 1 regarding waiting list number, criteria of delivery of vehicle of same model, schedule of delivered cars of this model, status of booking of complainant, number of creta model of same cars delivered from the date of booking of complainant by opposite party No. 1, 2 and 3, but they have not delivered the information to the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant also sent a mail to the opposite party No. 1 that the persons who have booked the vehicle of the same model as of the complainant have got the delivery of vehicles prior to delivery of said vehicle to the complainant which goes a long way to prove that they are indulged in unfair trade practice. It is alleged that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 30.06.2022 through invoice no. PH/2223/G/0089 dated 30.06.2022 and at the time of booking the said vehicle the ex-showroom price of vehicle was Rs.16,37,000/- but at the time of delivery of said vehicle to the complainant the opposite parties charged an amount of Rs.16,62,100/- from the complainant i.e. Rs.25,100/- was excess charged from the complainant by opposite party No.2 and 3 and as such, complainant asked opposite party No. 3 regarding the late delivery of vehicle and regarding excess amount charged from the complainant, but opposite party No 2 and 3 did not give any satisfactory reply and on 29.06.2022 the complainant visited the website of opposite party No. 1 and download the invoice of the vehicle to be delivered to the complainant which reflects the amount of Rs.16,37,000/-. It is alleged that on 29.06.2022 the complainant downloaded the quotation on the official website of opposite parties and the rate of the vehicle was reflecting on the same as Rs.16,37,000/-. The Ops have also failed to supply the second key of the vehicle to the complainant. It is further alleged that due to the late delivery of the vehicle by the opposite parties the complainant and his father was compelled to hire taxi on various occasions for their domestic as well as official work from the market and the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.76,750/- on hiring taxi on 26.03.2022, 30.03.2022, 10.04.2022, 22.04.2022, 05.04.2022, 20.05.2022, 03.06.2022, as such the complainant is entitled to recover said amount from the them. The complainant visited office of opposite party No 3 for servicing his vehicle and complainant purchased boot mat from opposite party No.3 bearing MRP of Rs.599/- but opposite party No. 3 charged an amount of Rs.713/- vide invoice no.N-62211F00369 dated 22.07.2022, which the Ops cannot charge beyond Maximum Retail Price and as such, complainant asked opposite party No.3 regarding the same but opposite party No.3 did not give any satisfactory reply. The act of opposite parties clearly amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and they did not adhere to the requests of the complainant and are continuing with the same act. Hence, there was clearly deficiency in services and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of all of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to refund the excess charged from the complainant and to pay expenses hiring the taxi and amounting to Rs. 76,750/-.
- To pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of physical pain and mental agony and harassment.
- Further, to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against HMIL (OP No. 1) as complainant have failed to prove by any document on record that any cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint against HMIL (OP No. 1). The complainant is not a consumer qua HMIL under the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the matter in dispute i.e. Delay in delay of Vehicle, revised rate of vehicle and excess amount charged by dealer. It is submitted that the aspect of retail sale is interse the complainant and concerned selling dealer in which HMIL had no role to play. It is submitted that the aspects of retail sale of vehicle is strictly inter se the complainant and concerned selling dealer. HMIL (Manufacturer) is not party to that aspect and has unnecessarily been made a party to the present complaint. Further, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for concealment and misrepresentation of material fact. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 3 had written an email to the complainant and tentative delivery date was given to the complainant which was later revised by opposite party No. 3. It is submitted that the delivery date is given by the concerned dealership which the complainant had selected at the time of booking. Further, complainant was also given Rs. 1,000/- voucher by the dealership as a gesture of Goodwill. The complainant had further concealed the material fact that at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, complainant had given satisfaction note to the concerned dealership regarding his concerns and had also further given rating of 10/10 for the resolution of the concern.
4. On merits, it is submitted that HMIL is manufacturer of Hyundai Vehicles and HMIL deals with all its dealers including opposite parties No. 2 & 3 on "principal-to-principal" basis and NOT on "Principal-To-Agent" basis. It is further alleged that complainant in present complaint has himself alleged that tentative date was given by opposite party No. 2 & 3 and no money was paid to HMIL and the same was paid to the concerned dealership. It is alleged that in the Terms and Conditions of the Booking, it has clearly been mentioned that quoted price is indicative and actual sale price will be applicable as prevailing on the date of invoice. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 filed separate written version by taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering opposite parties. The complainant by his own act, conduct and admission is estopped from filing the present complaint against the answering opposite parties. It is alleged that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant misinterpreted the facts of the complaint. Further, this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, as car was purchased from Sangrur and the payment was also made at Sangrur, which is within the jurisdiction of District Sangrur etc.
6. On merits, it is submitted that at the time of booking the ex-showroom price of the car in question was Rs.16,37,000/-but due to variation in market from time to time the cost of material enhanced, as such the answering opposite parties had not charged an excess amount. It is further alleged that the information regarding the delivery of the booked car sent to the complainant from time to time. It is further submitted that at the time booking of any vehicle there is no fix date as per the terms and conditions of company and it is just a assessment as per the availability of vehicles as company has to deliver the vehicles throughout India. All other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
7. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version of opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 3 and denied the averments as mentioned in the written version.
8. To prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence, affidavit of Naresh Kumar Bansal as Ex.C- 1, copy of General Power of Attorney as Ex.C-2 (containing 2 pages), copy of quotation dated 29.06.2022 as Ex.C-3, copy of booking order as Ex.C-4, copies of Emails are Ex.C-5 to C-14, copy of Invoice as Ex.C-15, copy of Invoice are Ex.C-16 & C-17, copies of receipts are Ex.C-18 to C-24 and closed the evidence.
9. To rebut the case the opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Nitin Kumar Gupta as Ex.OP1/1, copy of terms and conditions are Ex.OP1/2, copies of Emails are Ex.OP1/3 to OP1/7, copy of Customer Satisfaction note as Ex.OP1/8, copy of Hyundai warranty policy as Ex.OP1/9, copy of dealership agreement as Ex.OP1/10, copy of authority letter as Ex.OP1/11 and closed the evidence.
10. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 tendered into evidence copies of Emails Ex.O.P2.3/1 to Ex.O.P2.3/5, copy of invoice Ex.O.P2.3/6 dated 30.6.2022, copy of customer satisfaction note Ex.O.P2.3/7 dated 30.6.2022 and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
12. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant booked Car CRETA 1.5 CRDi MT SX(O) by paying a booking amount of Rs. 25000/- for an amount of ex-showroom price Rs. 16,37,000/- on 20.12.2021. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant that there is a waiting period of approximately two months for the delivery of said vehicle. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 30.6.2022 and at the time of booking of the said vehicle the ex-showroom price of vehicle was Rs.16,37,000/- but at the time of delivery of said vehicle to the complainant the opposite parties charged an amount of Rs.16,62,100/- from the complainant i.e. Rs.25,100/- was excess charged from the complainant by opposite party No. 2 and 3, as such, complainant asked opposite party No. 3 regarding the late delivery of vehicle and regarding excess amount charged from the complainant, but opposite party No 2 and 3 did not give any satisfactory reply. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant download the quotation on 29.06.2022 on the on the official website of opposite parties and the rate of the vehicle was reflecting on the same as Rs.16,37,000/-. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that due to the late delivery of the vehicle by the opposite parties the complainant and his father was compelled to hire taxi on various occasions for their domestic as well as official work from the market and the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.76,750/- on hiring taxi. It is further argued that the complainant purchased boot mat from opposite party No.3 bearing MRP of Rs.599/- but opposite party No. 3 charged an amount of Rs.713/- which the opposite parties cannot charge beyond Maximum Retail Price. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that the information regarding the delivery of the booked Car sent to the complainant from time to time.
13. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that the aspect of retail sale is interse the complainant and concerned selling dealer in which the opposite party No. 1 had no role to play. It is further argued that the complainant was also given Rs. 1,000/- voucher by the dealership as a gesture of Goodwill. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 1 is manufacturer of Hyundai Vehicles and deals with all its dealers including opposite parties No. 2 & 3 on "principal-to-principal" basis and NOT on "Principal-To-Agent" basis.
14. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 argued that at the time booking of any vehicle there is no fix date as per the terms and conditions of company and it is just a assessment as per the availability of vehicles as company has to deliver the vehicles throughout India. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 further argued that at the time of booking the ex-showroom price of the car in question was Rs.16,37,000/-but due to variation in market from time to time the cost of material enhanced, as such the opposite parties had not charged an excess amount.
15. We have gone through the facts and evidence produced by the parties. The complainant has not produced even single document to prove that the opposite parties gave promise that the car in question will be delivered within two months. The complainant himself produced the emails/information vide which it is established that the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 from time to time informed the complainant regarding the delivery of the said car in question. The complainant has produced Ex.C-9 in which the opposite parties clearly mentioned the revised waiting period of Creta Car of the complainant now is July 2022 and they have issued gift voucher of Rs. 1,000/- as a Goodwill gesture. The opposite parties have produced Ex.O.P1/3 email which was sent on 10 June 2022. It is clearly mentioned in the said email that as per order booking form we committed to deliver the vehicle by June 2022 (Tentative). The complainant himself admitted that the said vehicle was delivered to him on 30.6.2022. The opposite parties also produced the Customer Satisfaction Note Ex.O.P1/8 and Ex.O.P2.3/7 in which the complainant mentioned that “I am satisfied with Park Hyundai Barnala, Delivery Process is good” and the complainant gave the marks 10 out of 10 to the opposite parties. The complainant failed to prove that the opposite parties committed to the complainant that they will deliver the car within two months from the date of booking. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 further argued that it was made clear to the complainant that the price of the Car will be charged which is prevailing at the time of delivery. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties regarding the delivery of the vehicle in question.
16. The complainant has produced the document Ex.C-16 i.e. Tag of Boot Mat in which it is clearly mentioned the MRP as Rs. 599/-. The complainant has also produced the Tax Invoice issued by opposite party No. 2 Ex.C-17 vide which it is established that the opposite party No. 3 has charged Rs. 713/- which amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite party No. 3 cannot charge more than MRP (Maximum Retail Price). The complainant also produced the receipts Ex.C-18 to Ex.C-24 of R.K. Tour & Travels, but the complainant has not produced any supporting affidavit of R.K. Tour & Travels to prove the said receipts. The complainant also failed to produce any evidence to prove that the price of Car was not increased. The complainant is not entitled to get the amount spent by him for hiring Taxi as he failed to prove that the delivery of the car was committed within two months from booking.
17. From the above discussion, the complaint qua the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have committed that the delivery of the vehicle will be given within two months from the date of booking. However, the complaint is partly allowed qua the opposite party No. 3 for charging excess amount from MRP for Boot Mat. Therefore, the opposite party No. 3 is directed to refund the excess amount charged by him and also directed to pay the consolidated amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
9th Day of December, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
