Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/47

NIRUPAM KALIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA /RAJ MOTORS ROPAR AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

        BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES          REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                                        Remanded Back on : 12.12.2017

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  47 of 05.09.2016                                       Date of decision             :      20.02.2018

 

 

          Nirupam Kalia, aged about 36 years, son of Shiv Kumar,      resident of Village Sehjowal, P.O. Sukhsal, Tehsil Nangal,   District Ropar, Punjab, 140126 

                                                        ......Complainant

                                      Versus

 

     1. Raj Motors, VPO Chhoti Gandhon (Ropar) Pin Code 144001   through its Proprietor  

  2. Balwinder Singh, Sales Manager, Raj Motors, VPO Chhoti Gandhon, Ropar, Pin Code 144001 

    3.  Manisha Rani, Sales Consultant, Raj Motors VPO Chhoti                   Gandhon,    Ropar, Pin Code 144001 

                                                                                ....Opposite Parties

 

                         Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

                   Sh. R.K. Manan, Advocate, counsel for                                  complainant 

                   Sh. Udhey Verma, Adv. counsel for O.P.                                No.1

                   O.Ps. No.2 & 3 ex-parte

 

ORDER         

 

Sh. Nirupam Kalia through his authorized representative has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To refund the amount charged in excess (Rs.29,633/-) with interest  

ii)      To provide invoice cum receipt of Car, RC and corrected Car Insurance Policy 

iii)     To pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of petition

iv)     To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him,

 

2.                      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant wanted to purchase KUV 100, Six Seaters from Raj Motors. On 21.7.2016, his father visited the Show Room of the O.P. No.1. He was introduced to sale consultant, Manisha Rani, who gave a slip in her writing as deal. His father paid Rs.5000/- and booked a car in his name. She asked to deposit Rs.6,83,000/- in the SBI account of Raj Motors. He transferred the said amount into the account of Raj Motors on 27.7.2016. On 30.07.2016, Manisha Rani, demanded photocopies of RC and car of his mother, bearing registration No.PB-16A-9314, Ration Card and Aadhar Card and the said documents were sent through whatsapp to her. On 31.7.2016, he along with his father and mother went to showroom to take the delivery of the car. There, Manisha Rani, demanded and amount of Rs.28,000/- and he paid the same. At the time of taking the delivery of the car, he demanded invoice cum receipt of the amount paid by him, the officials of the O.P. No.1 handed over him the insurance cover note an a registration slip but refused to give other documents. On 01.08.2016, he complained to the office of the O.P. No.1 and also to Manisha Rani, about over charging. It is further stated that the Sales Manager of O.P. No.1 visited his house to know their views and he handed over some documents. The O.Ps issued a receipt dated 31.7.2016, for a sum of Rs.18,000/- and a receipt dated 01.08.2016, for Rs.10,000/- for the amount of Rs.28,000/- which he paid on 31.7.2016. The value of the car mentioned in the invoice dated 30.7.2016, was less by Rs.5000/- and then the amount quoted to him and there is no mentioned on what account of the OP No.1 had given the discount of Rs.25,000/-. The O.P. No.1 has also charged excess amount for insurance and RC. On comparison of letter dated 27.8.2016 received from the Raj Motors with the invoice dated 30.7.2016, it is evidence that the O.P. No.1 has charged in excess a sum of Rs.5000/- from him then the actual cost of the car and has charged Rs.3133/- in excess for RC and the accessory cum Maxi Care bill of Rs.14,500/-) is totally bogus. In this way, the O.Ps. have charged in total sum of Rs.22,633/- (Rs.5000/- + Rs.3133/- + Rs.14,500/-  in excess). The O.P. No.1 assured him to give total discount of Rs.32,200/- (Rs.25,000/- + RS.7000/-) but it had only given the discount of Rs.25,000/-. As such, O.P. No.1 was to refund an amount of Rs.29,633/-., (Rs.22,633/- +Rs.7000/-) but it refused to refund the said amount. Hence, this complaint.

2.             On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has filed the present complaint just to harass and humiliate and to lower down the its reputation in general public; that the answering O.P. never received any amount in excess from the complainant and the present complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous. On merits, it is stated that on 21.7.2016, the O.P. No.1 vide receipt No.1174, has received Rs.5000/- as booking amount from the complainant for purchase of KUV Petrol and has received Rs.2 Lac, 2 Lac and Rs.2.5 Lac through RTGS, also received Rs.18,000/- +Rs.10,000/- in cash, as such, complainant had paid in total a sum of Rs.6,83,000/- to it. The total price of the car including RC, Insurance and accessories comes out to be Rs.7,08,205/-. It has given a cash discount of Rs.8000/-, discount of Rs.10,000/- as welcome bonus and other discount of Rs.7000/- in total it had given a discount of Rs.25,000/-. After giving the discount of Rs.25,000/- the value of the car including RC, Insurance and accessories comes out of Rs.6,83,250/-, out of which the complainant had paid Rs.6,83,000/-. The allegations leveled by the complainant that it had charged Rs.29,633/- in excess is absolutely false and there is no question to refund the said amount. It is further stated that at the time of taking the delivery of the car, complainant was well aware of the charges taken for RC, Insurance and the accessories and he after fully satisfying himself had paid Rs.6,83,000/- to it. The allegation of the complainant that its Sales Manager visited his house is absolutely false. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.   

4.             On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.2 & 3 accordingly, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.10.2016.

5.             On being called upon to do so, the authorized representative of complainant tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C22 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Sales Manager, Ex.OP1and affidavit of Sh. Hans Raj, Sales Consultant, Ex.OP3 and copy of identity card Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.             This complaint was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 12.06.2017 and then complainant approached to the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, against the said order and the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, has set aside the order dated 12.12.2017, passed by this Forum and remanded back the present complaint with the directions that complaint should be decided on merits.  

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully and minutely.

 

7.             Complainant counsel Sh. R.K. Manan, argued that purchase of Car XUV 100, six seater from the O.Ps. is admitted by the O.Ps but the deficiency is upon 4/5 points.

              Firstly as per Ex.C10, O.Ps. demanded the total payment Rs.6,83,854/- including Rs.27,922/- as insurance premium, Rs.47,880/- as RC charges and some other charges, but when sold the vehicle then the price of the vehicle charged Rs.6,22,974/-, insurance premium Rs.17851/- and the amount payable towards RC Rs.44,747/-. In this way, the excess payment Rs.10,000/- towards insurance, Rs.3133/- towards RC and Rs.5000/- in excess against invoice. The learned counsel for the complainant also referred documentary evidence Ex.C1 to C22 then referred Ex.C17 and Ex.C18, vide which O.Ps. charged Rs.10,077/- and Rs.9505/- vide invoice dated 02.08.2016. By referring these documents, the learned counsel for the complainant prayed that these documents are forged and not ever issued at the time of purchase of vehicle. Rather Ex.C22 issued by the Raj Motors proves the price of the vehicle, accessories, insurance Rs.17851/-, total Rs.6,83,205/- and the said amount was transferred from the account of the complainant to the Raj Motors through RTGS/Cash. Learned counsel finally prayed that with the deficiency in service stands proves. Complaint be allowed with costs.

9.                      O.P. counsel Sh. Udhey Verma, argued that Ex.C10 never issued by the competent person (employee) of Raj Motors because neither it is the printed bill book nor signed by any of the person. Rather, if it is presume it to be correct then the total sale price including RC/Insurance accessories etc mentioned Rs.6,83,854/- and after sale O.Ps. charged only said amount. Neither charged excess amount nor play fraud with the complainant. Learned counsel then referred the sale letter Ex.C13, photocopy of the policy Ex.C15 and Ex.C17 and Ex.C18 vide which discharged the accessories expenses. Learned counsel for forcefully argued that qua the Ex.C22 relied upon by the complainant in which the cost of the vehicle mentioned Rs.6,27,974/- policy premium Rs.17,851/-, RC charges Rs.47,880/- and finally the total amount chargeable mention Rs.6,83,205/-. To meet out these figures, learned counsel for the O.P. prayed that though the O.P. Raj Motor take the responsibility of RC and the road tax comes to Rs.44,747/- and the difference come Rs.3133/-. If the buyer deposited the road tax Rs.44,747/- that does not mean the RC will be prepared itself for that purpose, firstly, the challan form is to be prepared, file is to be make ready then road tax to be deposited in the bank. After that complete file goes to the DTO Office and the file should contain stamps in the name of the buyer etc. attested by the Notary or Magistrate, so the total expenses comes near to Rs.3000/- by explaining the difference of Rs.10,000/- in insurance, Rs.3133 in RC and Rs.5000/- towards invoice. Prayed that there is no deficiency in service, rather it is the complainant who has dragged the O.P. Raj Motors continuously for a period of 2/3 years without any reason. Lastly by referring the documentary evidence placed on file prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs as the price demanded Rs.6,83,000/- and the said amount only charged, so the O.Ps. are entitled compensation against the complainant. Evidence adduced by both the parties stands incorporated in earlier part of the order and the fact of consumer dispute is almost admitted. Complainant purchased a vehicle from the O.Ps. and made the payment including road tax, premium of policy etc. Complainant alleged that O.Ps. charged insurance amount which amounts to deficiency in service as well as malpractice. So it is a consumer dispute and the complaint is maintainable.

10.         Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. or not. Though the controversy is based upon the documentary evidence but complainant has relied upon ex.C10 said to be rough estimate qua the price of the vehicle, accessories, road tax and other charges. Execution/issuance of this document is denied by the O.Ps. as it is not upon the printed performa. In this document, there is detail of price of the vehicle, policy and road tax etc. With further deduction and finally mentioned the total price for roadworthy vehicle is Rs.6,83,854/- and name of the complainant found mentioned. Without going in detail no authenticity is attached to the document relied upon by the complainant as neither complainant alleged who issued or who prepared and who signed. So much benefit cannot be extended to the complainant on the basis of this document. Coming to the other documents, complainant proved receipts Ex.C11 and Ex.C12, vide which he made the payment. Then placed on file Ex.C13 i.e. dated 30.07.2016 price of Mahindra KUV 100 mentioned Rs.5,50,330/- whereas the pen writing is separately recorded and mentioned Rs.5,50,330.87 + Rs.72,643.67/-. and thereafter mentioned Rs.6,22,974.54/-. Upon the one side there is one vehicle Rs.25,000/- and at the bottom the vehicle mentioned Rs.5,97,975/-. After going through this document, the Forum appreciated the price of the vehicle Rs.5,50,320/-, whereas the other digits are of pen, who scribed not named. Ex.C14 is receipt regarding Rs.44,027/- and then Ex.C14 receipt of Rs.377/-. Whereas Ex.C15 is photocopy of the policy valid dated 31.7.2016 and payment was made Rs.17,851/- as premium. There are some other documents and the star document is Ex.C22, vide which the total price of the vehicle recorded Rs.6,83,205/- including insurance price, accessories. charges etc. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, O.P. tendered affidavit of Balwinder Singh Ex.OP2, vide which he denied all the allegations made by the complainant. Ex.OP2 is the ID of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Ex.OP3 is affidavit of Sh. Hans Raj then of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Sales Manager, besides this there are nothing on the file. It is pertinent to mention here that this complaint was filed in the month of June 2017 and on notice, it was contested, this Forum vide order dated 12.6.2017, it was held that the matter is tryable by Civil Court. Aggrieved from the said order, complainant approached to the Hon'ble State Commission, who vide their order dated 12.12.2017 set aside the order of this Forum and the complaint remanded back for fresh decision.

11.           The responsibility to prove deficiency in service is on the part of the complainant. Though in earlier part of the order we disagreed qua the execution of the rough estimate Ex.C10 but if considered then the price of the vehicle is mentioned Rs.6,83,854/- including policy and road tax. Taking into consideration, the said documents, complainant has to pay only said amount of Rs.6,83,854/- for the purchase of the vehicle. Besides this the star document relied upon by the complainant is Ex.C22 which proves the total payment Rs.6,83,854/-. and that amount transferred in the name of the OP. from the account of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that deficiency upon three points. Qua the excess charges of the premium, second qua the road tax (RC) and third towards the price of the vehicle. We are coming to deal with three points one by one.

12.           Ex.C10 speaks the premium of policy Rs.27,922/- but at the same time it is mentioned upon this document that for the sale of the vehicle OP agreed to minus said amount. Similarly, there is minus entry of Rs.5000/- and insurance policy Ex.C15 proves payment of Rs.17,851/- as premium and the price of the vehicle mentioned Rs.5,96,575/-. So if the OPs charged premium less to the amount mentioned in Ex.C10 that it does not give any benefit to the O.Ps. or to loss to the complainant because complainant after purchase of vehicle is entitled for the policy benefit which were made available, so there is no deficiency on this point.

13.         Second for deficiency pointed out by the complainant qua Rs.3133/- for the registration of the vehicle. Complainant alleged that OPs deposited road tax near about Rs.44,750/- and the difference comes to Rs.3133/-. This Forum is not in agreement with the complainant on the ground that simply deposited the road tax does not mean RC would come automatically from the office of the DTO because for the deposit of road tax, necessary documents requires and for the deposit of road tax/completion of file it requires stamp papers then attestation by the notary etc. Besides this man power is required. So the expenses/difference alleged Rs.3133/- is not to be considered as deficiency in service rather the said amount might have spent by the O.Ps. for the issuance of the policy.

14.           Third point qua the excess charges of the price of the vehicle rough estimate relied upon by the complainant speaks price of the vehicle Rs.6,27,974/-, Ex.C13 proves price of the vehicle Rs.5,50,330/- without Vat then Ex.C22 relied upon by the complainant speaks price of the vehicle Rs.6,27,974/-. Finally the Forum has come to the conclusion that from the relied documents the price of the vehicle is Rs.6,27,974/-, which stands paid by the complainant to the O.Ps. So complainant remain fail to prove the excess charges of Rs.5000/-. Besides this complainant has relied upon issuance of two receipts Ex.C17 & Ex.C18 dated 02.08.2016. Complainant alleged charge of said amount from the price of the vehicle, whereas, OPs has taken the stand that complainant purchased accessories. From the close perusal of said document, it stands proves price of the body cover Rs.1005/-, crown strip set, mat, divinity etc. is mentioned in these documents, which stands purchased by the complainant separately.

15.         In the light of discussion made above, the Forum has come to the conclusion that OPs disclosed the price of the vehicle 6,83,854/- and that has been received vide separate receipts. So there is no deficiency in service or malpractice. Complaint is without merit and same is dismissed.       

16.           The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

               ANNOUNCED                                               (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

               20.02.2018                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                             (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER