BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 153 of 2018
Date of Institution :14.05.2018
Date of Decision :11.06.2019
Mrs.Manjula Sood, age 60 years w/o Sh.Balinder Sood resident of House No.119 Post Office, Street Sirsa District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1.Managing Director, Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltedc. E-1 Midc. Industrial Area (Phase Iii) village Nighoje Mhalunge, Kharawadi, Tal Khed, Chakan Pune, 410510.
2.Sujeet Motors Pvt. Ltd. 10th Km stone Delhi Hisar Bypass Nh-9 Hisar.
3.Sujeet Motors Pvt. Ltd. Opp. Maharaja Palace Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
4.Company Secretary & Head Legal: Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt. Ltd. Silver Utopia 3rd & 4th Floor, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakla, Andheri (East), Mumbai.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh.Vijay Bhalla, Advocate for the complainant.
Smt.Sunita Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.
Sh.Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for Ops No.2 & 3.
Sh.Suresh Malik, Advocate and Sh.Pankaj Jain, Advocate for Op No.4.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she had purchased a Volkswagen Ameo Car for a sum of Rs.7,82,460/- as Ex-showroom price vide invoice No.VSI-170305 and the delivery thereof was handed-over by Op No.3 on 15.01.2018. The complainant had raised a sum of Rs.4 lac as vehicle loan from the HDFC Bank Sirsa and rest of the money was arranged by her. After around one month of taking possession of the vehicle, she found that rear side of the car was having some colour defect and an extra line of paint was reflecting a different shade, therefore, she got checked the same from denting painting mechanic but it was told by him that the rear portion of the car was refurbished and re-painted. The complainant and her son reported the matter to the Op No.3, who acknowledged the fault and assured that it will send the vehicle to Op No.2 for further investigation as it was having a manufacturing defect. The complainant also informed the customer care Volkswagen through an email dated 12.02.2018 that her vehicle is being taken to Hisar for further investigation and in case, there is any manufacturing defect or the vehicle has been refurbished and repainted, she may be given a new vehicle free from any defect within 10 days. The vehicle was repaired by Op No.2 without her consent resulting into decreasing the value of the vehicle. It has been further averred that the premium of the insurance was Rs.19711/- but an amount of Rs.25729/- was charged from her and in this way, excess amount of Rs.6018/- were charged from her. The Ops have sold defective vehicle to the complainant and even charged excess amount, therefore, legal notice was served upon the Ops but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the complainant by filing the present complaint is trying to enrich himself, unjustly and unfairly without disclosing cause of action to file the present complaint. The sale of the vehicle is done by a dealer and the manufacturer cannot guarantee that the vehicle sold by the dealer is not tempered or damaged while in its custody and such damaged vehicle is refurbished. The vehicle is repeatedly brought to service station for repairs cannot make a ground to hold that vehicle suffers from manufacturing defects and there is no expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
Op Nos.2 & 3 in their joint reply have submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and the present complaint has been field with false and frivolous grounds. The complainant and her son paid the booking amount of Rs.20,000/- on 06.01.2018 and after full inspection and satisfaction, the date of delivery was promised as 08.01.2018. The total price was fixed at Rs.6,60,000/- against the ex-showroom price of Rs.7,45,100/- and that too was fixed after giving reasonable discount but the final deal was effected on 08.01.2018 the total price f the vehicle cam to Rs.7,71,711/- which included ex-showroom price of Rs.7,45,100/- insurance amount of Rs.19,711/- and logistic & TRC amount of Rs.6900/-. The payable amount was agreed as Rs.6,90,000/- after giving reasonable discount of Rs.81,711/-. The vehicle was delivered up to the full satisfaction of both the complainant and her son. After booking amount of Rs.20,000/- on dated 06.01.2018 no further payment was received till 24.01.2018 were the loan amount of Rs.3,97,336/- was credited in the account of Sujeet Motors. On 07.02.2018, son of the complainant visited the OP No.3 with issue of floor mats which was immediately sorted out. The scratches were occurred on the car after the delivery and the replying Ops agreed to paint at the place of scratches as Chitvan had requested to keep the vehicle under the cloak. Moreover, the replying Ops informed the son of the complainant that paint issue would be solved by sending the car to his just to extend friendly service but the complainant and her son did not pay any heed. Initially, son of the complainant complaint of a scratch and minor dent that was later given the cloak of colour defect and extra line defect on rear side just to put the burden of fault on Ops. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant after completing necessary servicing and polishing etc. but the son of the complainant is trying to pressurize the Ops to replace the said vehicle with a new one by giving it a cloak of manufacturing defect and kept on bringing different issues viz. floor mats, paint issues and discrepancy of insurance amount etc. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Ops. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
Op No.4 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and the said car has zero defects and in case of any kind of problem or defect Ops are liable for that. The Op No.4 deals in sale of vehicles to its dealers on principal to principal basis and there is no agency as master and agent between the Op No.4. There is no deficiency in service on the part of replying Op and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present compliant. It has been denied that the car was refurbished/repaired and the delivered to the complainant. The complainant after being satisfied with the quality, specification and performance of the car had made the decision to purchase the said car. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant, in order to prove her case, has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1, in which, she has reiterated all the contents of his complaint and also tendered documents legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, price lists Ameo Ex.C4 & Ex,C5, insurance certificate Ex.C6, email conversation Ex.C7 to Ex.C11 and reply to notice Ex.C12, whereas Ops No.2 & 4 have tendered affidavit of Sarwan Kumar, in which he has reiterated the contents mentioned in the reply and also tendered documents such as tele record Ex.R1, sales contract form Ex.R2, final deal Ex.R3, temporary registration certificate Ex.R4, customer profiling form Ex.R5, undertaking Ex.R6, customer feed-back Ex.R7, car quality inspection Ex.R8, insurance policy Ex.R9, invoice Ex.R10, ledger account Ex.R11, job car Ex.R12, gate pass Ex.R13, Tax invoice Ex.R14, email correspondence Ex.R15 to Ex.R20.
6. As per version of the complainant, she had purchased a Volkswagen Ameo Car vide invoice No.VSI 170305 dated 08.01.2018 amounting to Rs.7,82,460/- as Ex-showroom price and the vehicle was handed-over on or around 15.01.2018. The complainant had raised a sum of Rs.4 lacs as vehicle loan from HDFC Sirsa. There are specific allegations of the complainant that after about one month of the taking possession of the car, the complainant found that rear side of the car above rear bumper was having colour defect and an extra line of paint reflecting a different shade. She got it checked from denting and painting mechanic, who told that the rear portion of the car was refurbished and re-painted. She lodged complaint with OP Nos. 2 & 3 and correspondence through emails were exchanged between the complainant and Op No.3 from time to time. The complainant requested the Ops No.1 & 2 for replacement of the vehicle with new one and also claimed the excess amount of Rs.6018/- charged from her on account of insurance charges. As per allegations, the insurance cover note was issued for Rs.19711/- but an amount of Rs.25729/- was included on the road price vehicle from the complainant. So far the allegations of repainting of the vehicle is concerned, the complainant has furnished her affidavit in which she has deposed that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle but perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has not placed on record any opinion of the any expert qua manufacturing defect in the vehicle, nor she has placed on record any report of the alleged denting and painting mechanic, who told the complainant that the vehicle as repainted. So, fading of paint and rusting of body is concerned, it has direct co-relationship with upkeep and maintenance of vehicle. The complainant has not alleged any other manufacturing defect in the vehicle nor has placed on record any such evidence, so the complainant does deserve for the replacement of the vehicle with new one.
7. The second relief that she has sought for refund of Rs.6018/- which was allegedly charged by the Ops No.1 & 2 in excess as the amount for insurance premium was Rs.19711/-. The perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has not placed on record any receipt of Rs.25729/- from which it can be presumed that the complainant has paid such amount on account of premium of insurance of the vehicle and she got the insurance cover note after the premium receipt of Rs.19711/-. The perusal of the Ex.C4, price list reveals that it was proposed price of the vehicle for which a sum of Rs.25729/- were shown account of insurance charges. The insurance cover note Ex.C6 shows that an amount of Rs.19711/- as premium, but however, the Ops have relied upon the sales contract form which reflect the cost of the vehicle as Rs.6,60,000/- without RC and without insurance which bears the signature of the customer. Ex.R3, final deal reveals that the deal was struck for Rs.771711/- including an amount of Rs.19711/- as insurance charges, Rs.6900/- as logistic & TRC charges after giving discount of Rs.81711/- the net payable amount was Rs.6,90,000/- after giving total discount of Rs.84500/-. So,it appears from these documents that a sum of Rs.19711/- was charged by the Ops on account of premium of insurance while settling the final deal.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room
Pronounced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.06.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
