New Complaint No.245 of 2023.                                                           

                                                                Date of Institution:27.10.2023.

                                                              Old Complaint No:327 of 2018.

                                                                Date of Institution: 31.07.2018.

                                                                        Date of order:15.02.2024. 

Satwinder Singh Son of Sukhwinder Singh, resident of Village Kalar, P.O Gujjarpura, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur – 143505.

                                                                                                                                                                  ….........Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                    VERSUS

1.       Manager, B.G. International, Village & Post Office Hardo Jhande, Amritsar to Pathankot Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur – 143505.

2.       General Manager, Hyundai India Pvt. Ltd., North Regional Office, 1 & 2, Unit No. C-113-114, First Floor, Office Suites Elante, Plot No. 178-178A, Industrial and Business Park, Phase – 1, Chandigarh – 160002.

3.       Managing Director, Hyundai India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate One Baani Building, Plot No. 5, Jasala, New Delhi – 110025.

                                                                                                                                                                        ….Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Complainant: In person.

             For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Sachin Mahajan, Advocate.

             For the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3: Sh.Kewal Singh Saini,  Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Satwinder Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against B.G. International Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties running a business in vehicles in the name and Title as "Hyundai India Pvt. Ltd." and some respondents are officials of above said company at the locations mentioned above. It is pleaded that in the month of May 2018, the complainant purchase one i20 Car model Elite i20 Asta Diesel (White) from the OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 also alloted a Registration No.PB-18-U-2806. The above said i20 Car has many defects, the OP No. 1 while delivering the vehicle they provide the spare key without the remote and the fifth wheel of the vehicle is without alloy and also different in size from the other four wheels and last one while delivering the vehicle, OP No. 1 charge Rs.3,000/- as handling charges and on asking by the complainant from the OP No. 1 he did not give satisfied answer to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the said i20 Car is defective piece and opposite parties also fails to provide proper service to the complainant. The complainant on many occasions went to the OP No. 1 to solve the matter, but all the actions performed by the complainant are in vain. It is further pleaded that the complainant also give Legal Notice to the opposite parties dated 05.06.2018, but the opposite parties did not even to bother to give reply to the complainant. On many occasions, the complainant approach the opposite parties to resolve the matter but all in vain. It is further pleaded that the facts and circumstances narrated in the complaint prima facie proves that there was a serious deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering proper service to the complainant and the officials of the opposite parties store acted negligently and carelessly in dealing with the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to refund Rs.3,000/- paid by the complainant as the handling charges, Replacing Spare Key with Remote and Replacing spare wheel with alloy with proper size and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by the complainant due to the negligent and unprofessional conduct of the opposite parties may also be awarded to the complainant. It is further prayed that litigation expenses, which this Hon'ble Commission deems just fit and proper for the filing and pursuing the present complaint against the opposite parties may also be awarded to the complainant OR any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission deems just fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the complainant.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally is maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the Hon'ble Commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is pleaded that the complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against the replying opposite party No. 1 to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the replying opposite party No. 1 and to cause harm to the reputation of the replying opposite party and there is no deficiency in service as alleged in the present compliant by the replying opposite party. It is further pleaded that the complainant has purchased the car and got delivery of the same after going through all the terms & conditions mentioned in the broachers duly issued and supplied by the manufacturer of the car which is the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in the present complaint. The replying opposite party No. 1 being the dealer of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 sold out the vehicles/car to the customers in same condition as received from the manufacturing company. Whatever, accessories provided by the manufacturing company, same had been supplied by the replying opposite party No. 1 to its customers. It is further pleaded that in the present case also, whatever accessories or spare parts, which had been provided by the company had been supplied to the complainant. The fact was duly informed and was also in well knowledge of the complainant at the time of purchase of the car, when printed specifications as mentioned in the broachers were duly supplied by replying opposite party to the complainant, but with malafide intention, present complaint has been filed by the complainant, which is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further pleaded that the fact of matter is that the complainant purchased a Car i20, Model Elite Asta (diesel) from the replying opposite party No. 1 in the month of May 2018. Car was purchased by the complainant on dated 28.05.2018 against proper receipts and allotment of the Registration Number of the vehicle is also admitted. It is further pleaded that at the time of selling the car in question to the complainant, the fact was duly in the knowledge of the complainant that what things/accessories are being attached or available with the car and all such things were duly provided by the replying opposite party to the complainant. As per broacher issued by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3, goods/items were duly supplied by the replying opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. The manufacturing company i.e. the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 provides in the car purchased by the complainant, one remote key and one spare key without remote and manufacturing company provides spare wheel as tubeless without alloy and same was delivered by the replying opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. It is further pleaded that the charges of Rs.3,000/- were taken from the complainant by the replying opposite party No. 1 as per norms of the companies an receipt was duly issued by the replying opposite party to the complainant and it is also pertinent to mention over here that, the replying opposite party has also deposited GST on such amount with the concerned department. There is no fault on part of the replying opposite party No. 1 and No illegal amount has been charged by the replying opposite party from the complainant.

          On merits, the opposite party No.1 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as HMIL) i.e. replying OP’s No.2 & 3 as complainant have failed to prove by any document on record that any cause of action arose to them to file the present complaint against HMIL. The complaint filed by the complainant and averments made therein against the HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) are false, frivolous and vexatious and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed U/s 26 of Consumer Protection Act qua HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3). It is pleaded that the present complaint is not maintainable against HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) as the matter in dispute is strictly inter se the complainant and the OP No. 1 (M/s. B.G. International). The aspect of retail sale of vehicle is strictly inter se the complainant and concerned selling dealer i.e. the OP No. 1 (M/s. B.G. International). HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) (Manufacturer) is not party to that aspect and has unnecessarily been made a party to the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the present complainant is liable to be dismissed for concealment and misrepresentation of material facts as complainant has filed the present complaint by suppressing the material facts and by misleading the facts before the Hon'ble Commission just to get an undue advantage and undue relief to which, complainant should not be allowed to. The complainant has concealed and misrepresented the fact that a perfectly fine car was delivered to him. Moreover, the complainant has concealed the fact that "Owner Manual" (CD) was provided to the complainant alongwith the car and wherein, function of different parts has been described including details of the Spare Wheel are clearly mentioned. Thus, the complainant cannot claim that no information was provided to him in regard to spare wheel. It is further pleaded that 2 set of keys (primary and spare key) are provided with every car and spare key are without remote and these keys are provided by the dealer alongwith other accessories (as the case may be) to the customers at the time of delivery. It is to be noted that when any vehicle is bought from any dealer, the Consumer is required to verify all the contents of the vehicle and sign a delivery challan, stating that the accessories of the vehicle are being provided as well which are in satisfactory condition and if there is any discrepancy then complainant should be objected to the same at the time of taking delivery. It is further pleaded that dimensions of all the tyres in the car are same, however only steel wheel is provided in spare wheel. This information has been clearly mentioned in the Owner Manual provided with the car. Logistics charges are charged by the dealer to the customers in which HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) has no role to play. It is further pleaded that liability of HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) being the manufacturer of the Hyundai Cars is limited and extends to its performance and warranty obligations only that also as per warranty policy. Since, the complainant has not even purchased the car at the time of filing of the complaint, thus no deficiency can be attributed against HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3). Further, it is pleaded that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that the HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) had promised or assured services, which was not fulfilled by it or HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) was deficient in providing any services or has indulged in any unfair trade practice under the provisions of CPA, 1986. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) and no money towards sale consideration of the car or for logistic charges was paid to HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3). Thus, it cannot be held liable for the same. The HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) operates with all its dealers including the OP No. 1 on “Principal-To-Principal" basis and not on "Principal-To-Agent" basis. It is further pleaded that no cause of action has arisen to complainant to file the present complaint against HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3). The present dispute is strictly inter se OP No. 1 and the complainant. The HMIL (OP’s No. 2 & 3) has no role to play and that it has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party to the present complaint.

          On merits, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed an affidavit of Satwinder Singh, (Complainant) alongwith Self-Attested documents as Ex.CW-1/A to Ex.CW-1/C.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Sh. Chandanjit Singh, (Sales Manager, B.G. International Pvt. Ltd., Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1/1 alongwith Self-Attested documents as Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/10 alongwith reply.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Varun Panta, (Assistant Manager of M/s. Hyundai Motor Ltd., New Delhi) as Ex.OP-2,3/1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2,3/2 to Ex.OP-2,3/3 alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments filed by the opposite party No. 1, but not filed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and also not filed by the complainant.                     

10.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased one car from the opposite parties. However, after purchase it was found that the spare key was provided without remote and fifth wheel is without alloy and while delivering the vehicle opposite party No.1 charged Rs.3,000/- as handling charges. Complainant has repeatedly requested the opposite parties to provide second key with remote, fifth tyre with alloy and refund Rs.3,000/- but opposite parties have refused to do which amounts to deficiency in service.

11.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that opposite party No.1 is only dealer and whatever is supplied by the company is handed over to the customers and Rs.3,000/- was charged as handling charges as per norms of the company and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12.     Counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 has argued that Owner Manual CD was provided to the complainant alongwith car and functions of different parts have been described including details of spare wheels. Moreover, the dealers including opposite party No.1 operates on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent basis. Accordingly, opposite parties No.2 and 3 are not liable in respect of amount of Rs.3,000/- received by opposite party No.1.

13.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

14.     It is admitted case of the parties that complainant had purchased one I20 car model Elite I20 Asta Diesel from opposite parties. It further admitted fact that car sold by the opposite parties was handed over to the complainant with second key without remote, fifth wheel without alloy and opposite party No.1 charged Rs.3,000/- as handling charges. The only disputed issued before this Commission is whether the charging of Rs.3,000/- as handling charges and sale of car with spare key without remote and fifth wheel without alloy amounts to deficiency in service.

15.     To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit, copy of tax invoice Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.CW1/B, post receipt Ex.CW1/C whereas opposite party No.1 has placed on record affidavit of Charanjit Singh Ex.OP-1/1, copy of order form Ex.OP-1/2, copy of ledger account Ex.OP-1/3, copy of tax invoice Ex.OP-1/4, copy of service schedule Ex.OP-1/5, copy of handling invoice Ex.OP-1/6, copy of tax invoice Ex.OP-1/7, copy of policy of insurance Ex.OP-1/8, copy of satisfactory note Ex.OP-1/9, broacher Ex.OP-1/10. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 have placed on record affidavit of Varun Panta Ex.OP-2&3/1, copy of specifications of consumer information Ex.OP-2,3/2, copy of agreement Ex.OP-2,3/3.

16.     Perusal of tax invoice Ex.OP-1/4 shows that the opposite parties have not mentioned anything regarding accessories and charging of handling charges. The handling charges were charged vide invoice Ex.OP-1/6 and only excuse given by opposite party No.1 is that the same is being charged as per company norms whereas opposite parties No.2 and 3 have totally denied to have authorized opposite party No.1 to charge Rs.3,000/- form the customers. Accordingly, charging of Rs.3,000/- by opposite party No.1 amounts to business malpractice and deficiency in service.

17.     As far as sale of car without second key without remote and fifth tyre without alloy amounts to deficiency in service and seems to be a policy having been introduced by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 for cost cutting purpose. Although, opposite parties have given excuse that said fact is mentioned in Ex.OP-1/10 broacher but it is nowhere proved that broacher was ever supplied to the complainant. As far as the plea of opposite party No.1 regarding signing of satisfaction note Ex.OP-1/9 is concerned. It is not written in the satisfactory note specifically that the vehicle has been delivered with fifth tyre without alloy and second key without remote. Moreover, while supplying the second key and fifth tyre without specifications no prior consent of the complainant was obtained by the company and as such it is amounts to business malpractice and deficiency in service. We are further of the view that while advertizing the vehicle, the said fact is not disclosed that from which date the company has discontinued providing second key without remote as such opposite parties cannot unilaterally withdraw such specifications from the vehicles sold.

18.     Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 28.05.2018 till realization and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are also directed to provide second key to the complainant with remote. Since the complainant has definitely suffered mental tension, harassment and went through agony of litigation as such complainant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.3,000/- which shall be payable by the opposite parties jointly and severally. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  

19.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

20.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Feb. 15, 2024                                                        Member.

*YP*