Haryana

Kurukshetra

91/2017

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kaushalya Hundai - Opp.Party(s)

Lovekesh Machhal

28 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.91 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 26.04.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:28.05.2018.

Ashok Kumar Jain, resident of House No.936, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Kaushalya Hyundai, KDB Road, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.
2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd., 5^th and 6^th Floor, Corporate One, Baani Building, Plot No.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola Vihar, Delhi-110025.

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Lovekesh Machhal, Advocate for the complainant.   

                Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for the OP.No.2.

                Op No.1 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Ashok Kumar Jain against Kaushalya Hundai and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased Car Grand i10 Sprtz from the Ops on 09.01.2017 and at the time of sale of said car, the representatives of the Ops namely Raj Karan stated that the complainant is entitled to corporate discount of Rs.7,000/-.  It is alleged that for getting the benefit of corporate discount, the complainant visited the office of Ops with relevant documents but the Ops did not do so.  It is further alleged that thereafter, the complainant contacted the customer care of Ops on toll free number and from there the complainant came to know that the vehicle which was sold to the complainant was earlier sold to one Mr. Dahiya by Samta Motors, Karnal.  In this way, the Ops sold the second hand car to the complainant and cheated the complainant.  The complainant sent several e-mails to the Ops on different dates but the Ops lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to release the corporate discount i.e. Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as per policy of the company and to clear the status of car sold to the complainant by stating that the car is new one or second car and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.2 appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint, whereas Op No.1 initially appeared but did not appear on 18.07.2017 and was proceeded exparte.  Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint qua the answering Op No.2 as no cause of action has arisen against the answering Op or in favour of complainant qua the answering Op for filing the present complaint within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum; that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering Op No.2; it is submitted that there is no whisper of any specific allegation of deficiency of service against the answering Op No.2 and therefore, the Op No.2 is not a proper and necessary party to the present case; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is not disputed that the complainant purchased Car Grand i10 Sprtz from the Ops on 09.01.2017.  The only dispute between the parties is that according to complainant, at the time of purchasing of said car, the Ops told the complainant that he is entitled to corporate discount of Rs.7,000/- but despite several visits and requests, the Ops did not give the said benefit of corporate discount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant.  The complainant has proved on record Ex.C11 vide which it is clear that the Ops have given the offer of corporate discount to the complainant.  So, in these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of corporate discount of Rs.7,000/- from the Ops.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the complaint of complainant is allowed and we direct the Ops to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant.  The order; be complied within two months, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 6% p.a. on the above-said amount of Rs.7,000/- from the date of order till its realization and penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  A copy of said order; be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dt.:28.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member