DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOR`UM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.395 of 16-08-2012

Decided on 20-11-2012

Baldev Singh aged about 45 years s/o Karnail Singh r/o #16515-F, Street No.5/3, Baba Farid Nagar, Bathina, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

2.Tara Automobiles Opp. ITI Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Manjinder Singh Brar, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Amanpal Singh, counsel for the opposite party No.2.

Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that on seeing the advertisement in the newspaper regarding the allurement to save Rs.42,000/- to Rs.52,000/- on the purchase of various models of cars from March 24, 2012 to March 29, 2012, manufactured by the opposite party No.1, the complainant ordered the opposite party No.2 on 26.3.2012 to deliver the car ALTO K10 VXI-AMR4CD1 and the opposite party No.2 got fulfilled all the required formalities. The complainant got financed his said car from State Bank of Patiala and the opposite party No.2 offered Rs.52,000/- as discount. The said car was delivered to the complainant and he got registered the same with the registration authority at Bathinda vide registration No.PB-03Z-6442. At the time of the delivery, the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant to issue the cheque of the offered amount at the earliest but the opposite parties have failed to refund the offered amount despite repeated requests. Hence the present complaint.

2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 has sent its separate written statement alongwith the affidavit of the concerned person by post and pleaded that the relationship between the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are based on Principal-to-Principal and is governed by the Dealership Agreement as enumerated in Clause C of recitals of the said agreement. The dealers including the opposite party No.2 have no authority to represent the opposite party No.1 as enumerated in Clause 5 of the said Dealership Agreement. The complainant is not a consumer as there is no transaction of the sale and purchase of vehicle between him and the opposite party No.1 under section 2 (1) (d) of the 'Act'. The opposite party No.1 has not allured the complainant to purchase the said vehicle and it had not offered any amount to the complainant. The complainant has purchased the alleged vehicle from the opposite party No.2 under a contract for sale of goods (Maruti Alto K-10 Vxi) and entered into an agreement after having mutually settled the terms and conditions of the sale with the opposite party No.2. The complainant has not paid the alleged amount to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is liable only for the warranty obligations as per clause (3) of the Warranty Policy which the complainant has not pointed out. The sale transaction has taken place between the complainant and the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 has no privity to the sale contract. As the opposite party No.1 has not received any amount towards the price of the said vehicle, the complainant is not entitled to get the refund of the alleged offered amount. The opposite party No.1 does not sell the vehicles so manufactured to any individual customer directly thus the complaint deserves dismissal on this account against the opposite party No.1.

3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and admitted that the complainant placed an order with the opposite party No.2 on 26.3.2012 for delivering him Maruti Alto VXI-AMRD4CD1 car and all the formalities completed by him and he got the said car financed from State Bank of Patiala and Rs.52,000/- was to be offered by the opposite party No.2 as per the terms and conditions. But the opposite party No.2 has pleaded and denied that at the time of the delivery of the said car the opposite party No.2 gave any assurance to the complainant to issue any such cheque of any such amount as alleged by him. The complainant was owner of one Maruti Alto LX car bearing Chesis No.524950, Engine No.3187125 and he sold/handed over the same to the opposite party No.2 and the cost of the said car was admitted by the complainant as Rs.1,20,000/-, but however he was given an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- i.e. Rs.20,000/- in excess to the actual market price of the old car in lieu of the exchange bonus. The complainant gave an affidavit duly signed by him for the sale/handling over the Maruti Alto vehicle in favour of the opposite party No.2. The total cost of the new Alto Vxi car was Rs.3,37,904/- and out of this a discount of Rs.32,037/- was given and another discount of Rs.3000/- was given to the complainant, being an employee of the District Industries Office, Bathinda. In this way, the opposite party No.2 gave discount to the complainant to the tune of Rs.55,037/-(Rs.20,000/-+ Rs.32,037/- + Rs.3000/-) i.e. Rs.3037/- in excess than the offered discount of Rs.52,000/-. A booking detail sheet was prepared by the opposite party No.2 with regard to all the details of payments on 26.3.2012 to the knowledge of the complainant, which is duly signed by him. The above deducted amount was brought to the notice of the complainant at the time of making the payment by him. The amount of Rs.55,037/- was charged less than the actual price of the said car from the complainant as such he is not entitled to any relief.

4. The notice has been sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 despite receiving the notice has failed to appear before this Forum, but has sent its reply and affidavit through post on 10.10.2012. Thereafter also none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.1, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken qua the opposite party No.1.

5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

7. The complainant had booked one car ALTO K10 VXI-AMR4CD1, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 on dated 26.3.2012 and the same was delivered to him and he got registered the said car with the registration authority at Bathinda vide registration No.PB-03Z-6442. At the time of the booking of the said car, assurance was given to the complainant by the opposite party No.2 that a discount of Rs.42,000/- to Rs.52,000/- will be given to him but the opposite parties have failed to give him the discount as allured by them vide their advertisement published in newspaper w.e.f March 24, 2012 to March 29, 2012.

8. On the other hand the opposite parties admitted that the complainant has purchased the said vehicle from them. The relationship between the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are based on Principal-to-Principal basis and there is no contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has not given any assurance or allurement to the complainant to purchase the vehicle in question.

9. The opposite party No.2 has given the full detail in para No.5 of their written statement on merits that they have duly given the discount promised by them to the complainant. The complainant has sold his old car to the opposite party No.2, its original cost at that time was Rs.1,20,000/- vide Ex.R2, but he was given an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- as such the amount of Rs.20,000/- was given in excess to the actual market price of the

old car in lieu of the exchange bonus. The complainant had given an affidavit duly signed by him for the sale/handing over the Maruti Alto (old car) in favour of the opposite party No.2. The total cost of the new Alto Vxi car was Rs.3,37,904/- and out of this discount of Rs.32,037/- was given to the complainant and another discount of Rs.3000/- was also given to him, being an employee of the District Industries Office, Bathinda vide Ex.R5. As per Ex.R2 and Ex.R5 the total discount was given to the complainant to the tune of Rs.55,037/-(Rs.20,000/-+ Rs.32,037/- + Rs.3000/-) i.e. Rs.3037/- in excess than the offered discount of Rs.52,000/-. All these details are written in Ex.R5:-'Scheme for MUL: Rs.32,000/- + Rs.3000/-'.

10. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it has been proved that the actual cost of the said vehicle was Rs.3,37,904/- and vide Ex.R5 the discount of Rs.32,037/- and ISL discount of Rs.3000/-and Rs.20,000/- as excess amount for the old car (as per Ex.R2 the cost of the old vehicle was Rs.1,20,000/- whereas the opposite party No.1 purchased it for Rs.1,40,000/- i.e. on the higher rate than the market value and paid Rs.20,000/- in excess) against the offered discount of Rs.42,000/- to Rs.52,000/-.

If the version of the complainant be believed the opposite parties have to give the discount upto Rs.52,000/-, the record placed on file shows that the discount of Rs.3037/- excess has been given to the complainant than the offered discount of Rs.52,000/-. The total discount was paid to the tune of Rs.55,037/-.

11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed.

12. The opposite parties left to bear their own costs.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

20-11-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member