BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.45 of 2015

Date of Instt. 10.02.2015

Date of Decision :06.07.2015

Satpal son of Late Ragat Ram R/o H.No.25, Mohalla Gobind Pura Khera Road, Phagwara.

..........Complainant Versus

Lovely Autos, Lovely Mall, Dr.Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar City, through its Incharge/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.KC Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Arun Gupta Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant is a law abiding citizen. Aspiring for a car was allured by tempting and lucrative advertisement and circulated in different news paper across the country including Jalandhar by Maruti India Limited with attractive offer to exchange/pay old car on purchase of its new car. Aspirant and ambitious complainant came in contact with Chaman Singh sale representative of opposite party authorized dealer of manufacturer of Maruti cars and opposite party canvassed, prevailed and persuaded the complainant to go in for a new car model Maruti Swift Dzire. The said representative of opposite party gave the offer and assured that on purchase of new car an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- would be deducted/reduced from the retail bill price of the new car. Going by assurance, representation and believing gentleman business ethics and advertisement, the complainant purchased the said car at a total price of Rs.6,40,428/- vide performa invoice dated 23.9.2014 and the complainant was provided a receipt dated 9.10.2014 by the opposite party showing therein deduction of Rs.1,90,000/- of old car exchange. For making the required payment the complainant made payment of Rs.5,25,000/- through DD No.828875 dated 22.9.2014, Rs.3000/- in cash and Rs.1,90,000/- by way of adjustment for the exchange of old car. So in total the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,18,000/- inclusive of the car, insurance charges, permanent registration charges alongwith the temporary registration charges. However despite repeated requests the breakup of the money charged has not been provided by the opposite party. In the delivery memo the cost of the vehicle has been shown as Rs.6,75,181/-, whereas as per the invoice dated 26.9.2014 this amount is Rs.6,40,428/-. Opposite party has not come forward with any plausible and valid explanation as to why there is a difference of the two costs in respect of the vehicle and how and what adjustments have been made. Opposite party at the time of sale and delivery of new car also collected charges, amount of issue of registration certificate/temporary and permanent as required by Punjab/State Government from complainant. Accordingly statutory binding mandatory notification/obligate on opposite party to issue temporary registration number at the time of sale and also obtain permanent registration of new car from DTO, Kapurthala. It was sole responsibility of opposite party to complete and comply with all the requirement and formalities in time and ensure that permanent registration certificate of new car is issued by DTO, Kapurthala and there after hand over the same to the complainant. Opposite party collected charges for temporary mark charges and hidden logistic charges. Apart from these payment, the complainant paid for permanent registration number to opposite party as per the rate of government at the point of time. Opposite party issued temporary registration mark PB-08-CB-1802 on 26.9.2014 valid for 30 days from 26.9.2014 to 25.10.2014. Due to default, negligence and deficiency in rendering service and unfair and deceptive trade practice and failure to deposit registration fee within stipulated period after collecting from the complainant, permanent registration number was not allotted to the new car within the validity period i.e before the expiry of the temporary registration number. Consequently, on dated 7.10.2014, Punjab Government revised the rate of road tax and resultantly opposite party demanded Rs.11,900/- over and above the amount already paid by the complainant so as to enable Registering Authority/DTO, Kapurthala to issue the registration certificate of the said car. Forced by the circumstances and to abide by the law of land the complainant having no other option, under protest deposited the additional amount of Rs.11,900/- vide receipt dated 16.12.2014 over and above the amount already paid as per the revised rates for the State of Punjab. The complainant has been subjected to mental tension, pain and harassment at the hands of opposite party. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to refund him the amount of Rs.11,900/- paid under protest to get registration certificate and to provide breakup of Rs.7,18,000/- charged from him and further refund of logistic charges. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that at the time of purchasing of the vehicle the opposite party supplied the complainant price list in which Rs.3500/- was charges as logistic charges. The complainant after reading the price list purchased the car in question. The opposite party gave the offer to the complainant that on a purchase of new car an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rs.1,75,000/- old car price + Rs.15,000/- as exchange bonus) and the same was given to the complainant. The complainant purchased the car on 23.9.2014, and a receipt was provided to the complainant on 9.10.2014 showing therein deduction of Rs.1,90,000/- of old car price plus exchange bonus. The complainant made payment of Rs.5,25,000/- through draft and Rs.3000/- in cash and Rs.1,90,000/- by way of adjustment for the exchange of old car. So, in total the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,18,000/- inclusive of insurance charges, permanent registration charges. It is submitted that in the delivery memo cost has been shown as Rs.6,75,181/- and in the invoice the amount of Rs.6,40,428/- was shown. The detail of the difference is as mentioned below:-

1. Extended Warranty Rs.9253/-

2. Insurance Rs.22,371/-

3. Registration Charges Rs.36,315/-

4. Consumer Offer Rs.7500/-

5. A gold coin price Rs.3000/-

6. Vehicle cost Rs.6,65,928/-

7. Additional discount Rs.5000/-

3. On 7.10.2014, Punjab Government revised the rate of road tax and the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.11,900/-. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. So far as the amount of Rs.11,900/- is concerned, the same was refunded to the complainant on 24.3.2015 through cheque. Statement of learned counsel for the complainant regarding receipt of cheque was recorded separately. So after refund of the above said amount, the relief regarding the same no longer survive. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for complainant only pressed for compensation. The complainant purchased the car on 23.9.2014 and at the time of purchase, the complainant had paid the registration charges to the opposite party. Opposite party as per notification issued by the State Government was required to deposit the registration charges in State Bank of India on the same day online but it did not do so. Subsequently, on 7.10.2014, the State Government revised the rate of road tax and due to this reason, opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.11,900/- from the complainant. The opposite was at fault in not depositing the registration charges in time. The complainant paid Rs.11,900/- on account of increase in road tax subsequently under protest but this amount has been refunded by the opposite party to the complainant during pendency of the present complaint. The complainant had to file the present complaint before the above said amount was refunded to him. So, he had to face unnecessary harassment and further incur expenses on the present litigation for which he is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

06.07.2015 Member Member President