Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/224/2016

Rajesh Kumar Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra and Mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

N.S. Jagdeva

01 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	224 OF 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	31.3.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	1.3.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Rajesh Kumar Arora s/o Roshan Lal Arora r/o H. No. 594/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. Mahindra and Mahindra through its MD, Mahindra Towers, GM Bhosale Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018.

 

2. Harbir Automobiles through its Managing Director, plot No.182/84 Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

 

DR. MANJIT SINGH                  PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Adv.
For OP NO.1	:	Sh. Subhash Chand, Adv.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that on 11.1.2016 complainant had made his mind to buy a Mahindra TUV 300 vehicle having cost of Rs.9,01,000/-. According to the complainant the OPs gave the complainant discount of Rs.40,000/- and free bumper to bumper insurance on the 2015 model. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,54,650/- which included price of the accessories to the OPs towards the price of the car after discount. On the receiving the amount the OPs  handed over the keys of the vehicle to the complainant and also held joint ceremony at the premises of OP No.2. It is alleged that after completing all formalities the OPs did not deliver the vehicle on account of the reason that free insurance on the vehicle was wrongly given. The brother and friend of the of the complainant told OP No.2 that they had displayed on the notice board that insurance is free on this vehicle but it remained adamant and ultimately he had to pay Rs.13,260/- (50% of the insurance amount) under protest.  Thereafter the complainant numerous request to the OPs to refund  the amount paid by him towards the  insurance but in vain.      Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case
3.      The OP No.1 in its written statement stated that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the answering OP as there no privity of contract between the complainant and the answering OP. It is asserted that the answering OP cannot be held liable for the act and omission of OP No.2 with whom the relation of the answering are principle to principle basis.  The answering OP is only liable to the complainant if there is any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question but no such allegations has been levelled against the answering OP. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.           OP No.2 in its reply stated that the complainant had already availed the benefit of free insurance at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question.  It  is pleaded that the complainant negotiated and finalized the deal with the answering OP on extra discount of Rs.12,583/- which was in addition to amount of free insurance of Rs.24,346/- . Thus the complainant availed a total discount of Rs.36,929/- and he also selected accessories worth Rs.21,508/-.  It is asserted that still Rs.16,7979/- is recoverable from the complainant.  Denying all other allegations levelled in the complaint it is pleaded that the complaint be dismissed.
5.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

8.     On Perusal of Annexure C-1, we find that the OPs were required to give free insurance cover for the 2015 model of the vehicle in question. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the 2015 model of the vehicle in question. On perusal of the document Annexure C-6, we find that the OPs have charged Rs.13,260/- on account of insurance payment, which was not required to be charged in view of the scheme reflected in Annexure C-1. Hence, we are of the considered view that the OPs are indulged in unfair trade practice by charging insurance amount from the complainant against their scheme i.e. free insurance on 2015 model of the vehicle in question.  As such they are liable to refund Rs.13,260/- to the complainant charged by them towards insurance against their own scheme.  

 

9.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.13,260/- to the complainant, which were charged by the OPs from the complainant towards insurance.  

 

[b]  To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[c]  To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

10.     The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

11.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

1.3.2017                        DR. MANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

 

 

SD/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

SD/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER