BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.159 of 2018.
Date of institution: 29.05.2018.
Date of decision:20.06.2019.
Anita wife of Sh. Sunil Kumar, resident of Ward No.13, near Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- L.R.Automobiles, N.H.65, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its proprietor (Authorized Hyundai Dealer).
- Hyundai North Region Office, Unit No.C-113-114, Ist floor Office Suites Elante Plot No.178-A, Industrial and Business Park Phase-1, Chandigarh-160002 (Manufacturer of Hyundai Cars).
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Manoj Saharan, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Sunil Polist, Advocate for the OP.No.1.
Sh. S.S.Josan, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant purchased a new car make Grand i10 Sports from the Op No.1 in Ex-showroom price of Rs.7,16,460/- vide bill No.LRH/2017-18/0786 dt. 25.01.2018. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as booking amount on 23.01.2018 vide bill No.23158, Rs.1,56,460/- paid on 25.01.2018 cash to the Op No.1, Rs.1,47,020/- paid to the Op No.1 on 25.01.2018 through cheque vide bill No.23400 and the said vehicle was got financed in the sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Kaithal. It is further alleged that the total sale price of vehicle was Rs.8,63,480/- including the expenses of Registration Certificate and insurance accessories etc. After 10 days, the complainant asked the Op No.1 for registration certificate of said vehicle, but the Op No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. On 02.04.2018 the salesman of Op No.1 told the complainant that there is delay in applying the registration certificate, so, an amount of Rs.16,670/- was to be paid as fine. The Op No.1 has received the total amount of Rs.8,80,150/- i.e. Rs.8,63,480/-+Rs.16,670/- from the complainant. The complainant visited the Op No.1 several times for the registration certificate of vehicle in question but the Op No.1 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. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately. Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; jurisdiction; that at the time of delivery of car, the full payment of Rs.7,21,672/- was not paid by the complainant; that an amount of Rs.7,16,460/- was paid by the complainant upto 02.03.2018 and an amount of Rs.5121/- is balance towards the complainant but the complainant did not come forward to pay the pending dues and to deposit the RC fee, so on 05.03.2018 a registered letter was sent by the Op No.1 to the complainant. On 18.04.2018 the husband of complainant came to the Op No.1 and deposited an amount of Rs.16,670/- for pending dues i.e. Rs.5121/-, Rs.549/- as interest & Rs.11,000/- for RC but on the same day, it was informed to the complainant that late fee will also be given for applying RC and an amount of Rs.83,630/- instead of Rs.11,000/- is needed for applying RC. On 21.05.2018 a registered letter was sent to the complainant for demanding the rest RC feet i.e. Rs.72,630/- and on 26.05.2018 the husband of complainant deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/-. On 19.06.2018 the RC of complainant was prepared and on 25.06.2018 it was also informed to the complainant and her husband but they did not come forward as they are not interested to pay the rest RC fee i.e. Rs.51,940/- and instead of paying the rest RC fee i.e. Rs.51,940/, the complainant filed the present complaint; 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.
3. Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; that the answering Op operates with all its dealers on a principal-to-principal basis and errors/omission, if any, at the time of retail sale of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. The liability of the answering Op is limited only to the performance of the car. There is no allegation of any manufacturing defect or performance in the car. It is submitted that the car delivered by the answering Op to the Op No.1 was in a perfect condition. As far the claim of compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the sale and purchase of the vehicle was amongst the Op No.1 and the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7, Mark-CA and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R16 and thereafter, closed the evidence. Op No.2 did not produce any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Op No.2 was closed vide court order dt. 29.04.2019.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, the complainant has mentioned in his complaint that he has purchased a new car make Grand i10 Sports from the Op No.1 as Ex-showroom price of Rs.7,16,460/- vide bill No.LRH/2017-18/0786 dt. 25.01.2018. According to the complainant, he paid Rs.10,000/- as booking amount on 23.01.2018 vide bill No.23158 Ex.C1, Rs.1,56,460/- paid on 25.01.2018 cash to the Op No.1 vide bill No.23181 Ex.C2 and Rs.16,670/- paid cash vide bill No.106 Ex.C3 and the said vehicle was got financed in the sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Kaithal. The complainant alleges that he also made the payment of Rs.1,47,020/- to the Ops on 25.01.2018 through cheque, photo-stat copy of which is placed on the file. The dispute between the parties is that the complainant claimed that the amount of Rs.16,670/- has been given excess to the Op No.1 and he claimed for refund of that amount. The complainant demanded the RC and the same has not been provided by the Ops. Both the parties have admitted at the time of arguments that the RC has been delivered to the complainant. Now question arises whether the complainant has paid any excess amount in lieu of sale price of vehicle in question. The company has given the detail of the showroom price, which is mentioned as under:-
Ex-showroom price : Rs.6,97,020/-
Insurance Policy : Rs.18,552/-
TP : Rs.1,000/-
Accessory : Rs.2,100/-
HC : Rs.3,000/-
______________________________
Total : Rs.7,21,672/-
_______________________________
The complainant claimed that he has paid the amount of Rs.1,47,020/- through cheque but he claimed for refund of excess amount of Rs.16,670/- alongwith interest which was received by the Op No.1 from the complainant on 18.04.2018. It is also admitted fact that the Op No.1 has given the RC when the complainant has paid the entire amount to the Op No.1. But at the time of arguments, the complainant has drawn our attention that the complainant has also paid the amount of Rs.1,47,020/- to the Op through cheque as mentioned in the receipt dt. 25.01.2018. The complainant has argued that he has paid the amount of Rs.1,47,020/- to the Op No.1. If we include the above-said amount of Rs.1,47,020/- and amount deposited by the complainant for purchase of vehicle i.e. Rs.10,000/-+Rs.1,56,460/-+Rs.5,50,000/-, then the price comes to Rs.8,63,480/-, whereas the price of vehicle as per dealer payment/bill mentioned in the written statement is Rs.7,21,672/- and the amount goes to more than Rs.1,00,000/- in comparison of the price shown of the vehicle in the written statement of Op No.1. During the course of arguments, this Forum has asked the complainant to produce the record regarding the payment of the amount of Rs.1,47,020/- through cheque either to produce bank record or other mode of transfer of the said amount. But despite giving direction by this Forum, the complainant has failed to produce the detail mentioned above. In this way, the complainant is making the false excuse and he has not stand at his own legs because on one hand, he is claiming for refund of the amount of Rs.16,670/- (as fine charges in lieu of RC issued by Registration Authority). Although the above-said amount has been paid by the complainant voluntarily to the Op No.1 for obtaining the RC and at the time of arguments, the complainant is still claiming the refund of the amount of Rs.1,47,020/- which was alleged to be paid through cheque. The complainant himself is not clear that what he wants to claim from the Ops. Hence, the complainant is misleading the Forum and not cleared the actual picture of the case. In this way, we are of the considered view that the complainant has unnecessarily and knowingly concealing the true facts from this Forum and the complainant has dragged the Ops in unwarranted and unwanted litigation. So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops. Undisputedly, preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone who wants to take undue benefit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But in the present case, we found that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the Ops and the complainant has wasted the precious time of this Forum. As per Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended time to time which says that “Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints.—Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- which will be paid by the complainant to both the Ops in equal share i.e. Rs.5,000/- each to both the Ops within 15 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:20.06.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
