Haryana

Kurukshetra

82/2016

Harpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundai Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Rahesh Laller

09 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.82/16.

Date of instt. 18.3.16. 

                                             Date of Decision: 9.2.18.

 

Harpal Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of House No.628/1, New Bus Stand Road, Saraswati Colony , Kheri Markanda, Kurukshetra.

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Hyundai Motors India Limited office at Unit No.C-113-114, 1^st Floor, Office Suites Elante, Plot No.178-178A, Industrial and Business Park Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.
2. Kushalya Motors KDB Road, Near K.R. Palace, Kurukshetra, through its Manager.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.              

 

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

        Shri Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:         Sh. Rakesh Laller, Adv. for complainant.

 Sh. Parveen Chopra, Adv. for Op No.1.

 Sh. Karan Tanwar, Adv. for OP No.2.

 

           

ORDER

                                                             

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Harpal Singh against Hyundai Motors India Limited and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant had booked to purchase one Hyundai Creta 1.6 car manufactured by OP No.1 vide booking receipt No.Bkgs-147 dated 7.9.2015 and had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Op No.2. The OP No.2 delivered the vehicle on 23.10.2015 after a long delay of about 45 days and Op No.2 charged Rs.11,86,526/- vide invoice No.KKR-281 dated 23.10.2015. The complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.48,513/- as insurance and thus the complainant totally paid for this vehicle Rs.12,35,039/-. One Manpreet Singh son of Gulzar Singh, resident of Kainthala, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra has also booked the same model through Op No.2 after the date of booking of complainant and Op No.2 delivered the same model to said Manpreet Singh and Op No.2 charged only Rs.11,66,400/- vide invoice No.KKR-313 dated 5.11.2015 and said Manpreet Singh has only paid Rs.38,343/- as insurance charges. The complainant has paid road tax to the Government of Rs.11,86,526/- and said Manpreet Singh has paid road tax of Rs.11,66,400/-. The complainant has paid extra amount of Rs.30,296/- for the purchase of said vehicle. The complainant requested Op No.2 time and again for refund of the extra amount paid by the complainant but Op No.2 lingered the matter on one pretext or other and has not paid the same. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, to pay Rs.1600/- as extra registration charges, Rs.1800/- as late fee, to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses, Rs.1000/- misc expenses and Rs.30,296/- etc. spent by the complainant.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite party no.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering OP; that the complainant is alleging in his complaint overcharging by Op No.2 for car sold to him but from the perusal of complaint not even a single allegation is made out against the answering OP and no money was paid to the answering OP towards the sales consideration of car, hence it cannot be held liable for refunding any part of the same and the answer; that the answering OP has no role in the retail sale of the vehicle, so the answering OP is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objection was reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing the separate written statement raising preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action against the answering OP; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and as such, he is not entitled for any relief. The true facts are that giving discount to any consumer is only right reserved by the answering OP and for that purpose answering OP is not at all answerable to the complainant; that for the purpose of goodwill, marketing and promoting the brad answering OP used to give discount to loyal customers, which is his personal discretion and for which the answering OP is not liable to accountable to any customer; that Manpreet Singh son of Gulzar Singh, resident of Kainthala, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra is loyal and old customer of the answering OP and he used to promote the brand of answering OP and further he manage to boost sale of answering OP and for promoting the brad in the Pehowa Aare he had been given discount, which is the sole wish of the answering. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. On merits, the contents of complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were repeated and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

5.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the OP No.2 delivered the vehicle on 23.10.2015 after a long delay of about 45 days and Op No.2 charged Rs.11,86,526/- vide invoice No.KKR-281 dated 23.10.2015. It is also argued that the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.48,513/- as insurance and thus the complainant totally paid for this vehicle Rs.12,35,039/-. He further argued that one Manpreet Singh son of Gulzar Singh, resident of Kainthala, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra has also booked the same model through Op No.2 after the date of booking of complainant and Op No.2 delivered the same model to said Manpreet Singh and Op No.2 charged only Rs.11,66,400/- vide invoice No.KKR-313 dated 5.11.2015 and said Manpreet Singh has only paid Rs.38,343/- as insurance charges. The complainant has paid road tax to the Government of Rs.11,86,526/- and said Manpreet Singh has paid road tax of Rs.11,66,400/-. So, the complainant has paid extra amount of Rs.30,296/- for the purchase of said vehicle and as such he is entitled to get it refunded from the Ops. He also argued that the Ops have also harassed the complainant and as such, the complainant is also entitled for compensation.

8.            In our view, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant has no merit because the Op No.2 had charged the cost of vehicle as well as insurance on the actual price of the vehicle  and also charged the insurance amount on the basis of costs of the vehicle and for this purpose the OP No.2 has issued the bills in this regard. So, question of charging the excess amount of Rs.30,296/- from the complainant is without basis and the complainant is not entitled to get it refunded from the Ops.

9.               So, in such like circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complaint is without any merit and as such, the complaint is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to record after due compliance.

                 Copy of this order; be communicated to the parties.

Announced:   

Dt.9.2.2018                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                          President

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra

 

 

                (Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)                    (Viraj Pahil)

                          Member                                     Member