Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/30/2013

Manjit Singh Khaira - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mercedes-Benz India Private Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Abhinashi Singh Adv.

21 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint Case No.	30 of 2013
Date of Institution	10.05.2013
Date of Decision	21.07.2015

Manjit Singh Khaira S/o S.Kartar Singh r/o House No.4, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh.

                                                        ….. Complainant.

                                Versus

1. Mercedes – Benz India Private Limited, E-3, MIDC, Chakan, Phase III, Cakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune – 410501.
2. Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.41, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh.

                                                        ….. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Abhinashi Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.S.S.Bawa, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER         

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a designated Senior Lawyer, practicing in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was stated that in April, 2012, the complainant decided to buy Mercedes Benz (M-Class) car. Therefore, he visited the showroom of Opposite Party No.2 and saw Mercedes (M-Class) ML-350-CDI car. It was stated that the complainant alongwith his two friends, was given a demonstration of the car and test drive at Punjab and Haryana High Court by the representative of Opposite Party No.2 and the said demo car was fully equipped with all the accessories and features such as reverse sensors, footstep board, airmatic suspension, head light automatic washers, memory seats, parking/handbrake automatic controls on steering itself etc. It was further stated that the brochure of the said car available on the official website of Mercedes also showed the car loaded with all the abovesaid accessories. Copy of the online brochure is Annexure P-1. It was further stated that the complainant being impressed by the car at display and test drive, booked Mercedes (M-Class) ML-350-CDI on 28.04.2013 (In fact 28.04.2012) by paying an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- under the bonafide belief that the car would have features given in the said brochure. It was further stated that the date of delivery of the said car was given by the dealer as 03.05.2012. However, the dealer made it clear that the car would be made available on that date, if the entire sale price of the car was deposited in its account on or before the date of delivery. Therefore, the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- into the dealer’s account on the date of delivery, meaning thereby, he paid the entire payment of Rs.44,00,000/- to the dealer before the delivery of the said car.

2.             It was further stated that on 03.05.2012 when the complainant went to the showroom of Opposite Party No.2 to take delivery of the vehicle, he was surprised to see a car, which seemed ‘stripped off’ of some of the accessories, which were there in the test/demo car and the car on display, which was shown as sample to him. However, the complainant was made to believe by two of the representatives of Opposite Party No.2 that the car was similar to the one, which was demonstrated and given test drive and there was no material difference. Copy of the invoice is Annexure P-2. It was further stated that in the meanwhile, one of the acquaintance of the complainant purchased the same vehicle       in the month of May from the same dealership and he was shocked to find that the car was fitted with at least 6-7 additional accessories, which came alongwith the car at no additional cost. The complainant made a detailed enquiry and found that he was given demonstration of the car similar to the one, which was sold to his friend but he (complainant) was delivered a totally stripped down version of the said car.

3.             The complainant further enquired the matter and found that the Company had launched the new version of the car and Opposite Party No.2 sold the old version to him and, as such, he felt utterly cheated by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the complainant visited the showroom of Opposite Party No.2, and also sent emails to them, but they did not pay any heed to the same. Copies of the emails exchanged between the complainant and the Opposite Parties are Annexure P-3. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

4.             Initially Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.06.2013. That order was set aside by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 12.05.2015 in the Revision Petition No.2962 of 2013 filed by Opposite Party No.1 and the parties were directed to appear before this Commission on 21.05.2015. In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1 admitted that Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Joshi Autozone is its authorised dealer, at Chandigarh. It was stated that the relationship between the Company and the dealer is on principal to principal basis. It was further stated that the complainant had purchased the vehicle and taken delivery of the same after thorough examination and trial of the car, as also on being fully satisfied of its roadworthy condition. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party sold vehicles and spares in bulk to the authroised dealers on principal to principal basis and the authorised dealers were responsible for subsequent retail sale and service of the vehicles sold to the customers. It was further stated that the obligation of the replying Opposite Party was limited to the warranty obligations alone. It was further stated that it is not the case of the complainant that such an assurance relating to complimentary additional fitments was given to him by Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that correspondence annexed (Annexure C,D,E & F) clearly revealed that no such assurance was given and the complainant knew what he was buying. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.2 denied that the test drive of the vehicle, in question, was given at the premises of Punjab and Haryana High Court, as alleged by the complainant. It was stated that the complainant had booked ML 350 CDI, Corporate Edition, Colour White, after test drive of the said vehicle, which was at display and paid an amount of Rs.15 lacs on 28.04.2012 through RTGS. Copy of the Order Booking Form & Commitment Sheet and copy of the receipt dated 28.04.2012 are Annexure R-1 and R-2. It was further stated that the brochure (Annexure P-1) attached by the complainant was not of the vehicle purchased by him, rather it pertained to the latest edition of ML 350. It was further stated that the vehicle ML 350 purchased by the complainant was the same vehicle with all features, which was booked by him, test drive whereof was taken by him, and which was demonstrated at display and as per the brochure prevailing in April, 2012. It was admitted that the complainant further paid an amount of Rs.29 lacs, vide receipt dated 03.05.2012, before the delivery of the said car. It was further stated that perusal of the booking form and commitment sheet duly signed by him, showed that he booked Corporate Edition of the vehicle. It was denied that the replying Opposite Party, under pressure of Opposite Party No.1, sold the old vehicle to the complainant. It was further stated that due to multiple variants of the vehicles, it is not always mentioned in the website of the Company but in the present case, the complainant was delivered a vehicle which he had booked and test driven by him. It was further stated that Annexure P-1 on record pertained to the latest edition of the model ML 350 launched on 15.05.2012 priced at Rs.66 lacs. It was further stated that the complainant had booked Corporate Edition in the Order Booking Form and now he could not state that he was unaware of the Corporate Edition of the vehicle. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

6.             The complainant, filed replication to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.

7.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.             The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, there was any deficiency, in service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, while supplying the old version of the car. The answer to this, is in the negative. Annexure R-1, is a copy of the Order Booking Form & Commitment Sheet. From this document, it is proved that the complainant booked Mercedes Benz ML-350-CDI car from Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.2) on 28.04.2012. Annexure R-2 is a copy of the Cheque/Draft/Transfer Receipt dated 28.04.2012. From this document, it is proved that at the time of booking of the car, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-.  It is the admitted fact that the complainant transferred an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- to the dealer’s account on the date of delivery i.e. 03.05.2012 before delivery of the car and, as such, he paid the entire amount of Rs.44,00,000/- for the said car to Opposite Party No.2.

10.            The averment of the complainant, that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, he was surprised to see a car which seemed ‘stripped off’ of some of the accessories, which were there in the test/demo car and the car on display. As per the complainant, since he was not well informed about the latest technology and accessories, which came alongwith the car, he could only notice a few things which were missing in the car and, therefore, did not bother much and took the delivery vide invoice Annexure P-2. According to the complainant he was shocked when one of his acquaintances purchased the same vehicle in May itself and found that the car was fitted with at least 6-7 additional accessories, which came alongwith the same (car) at no additional cost and on enquiry, he found that the Company had launched the new version and as no one would buy the one lying in the old stock, therefore, Opposite Party No.2 was under pressure of Opposite Party No.1 to sell off the old stock first and the old version was slipped over to him.

11.            On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 (Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd.) while denying the said averments of the complainant, stated that the brochure (Annexure P-1) filed by the complainant alongwith his complaint, was not of the vehicle purchased by him, rather the contents of the said brochure pertained to the latest edition of ML 350 car, which was launched on 15.05.2012 at the cost of Rs. 66 lacs. Opposite Party No. 2 further stated that the vehicle ML 350 purchased by the complainant is the same vehicle with all features as test driven and booked by him and demonstrated at display, as per the brochure prevailing in April, 2012. Opposite Part No. 2 further averred that the complainant signed the booking form and subsequently got the delivery, after satisfying himself with the features of the car, which was on display and shown to him, earlier at the time of booking and in such an eventuality, there was no element of cheating or misrepresentation.

12.            The Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 drew our attention to the Order Booking Form and Commitment Sheet (Annexure R-1). A bare perusal of the Order Booking Form and Commitment Sheet (Annexure R-1) clearly reveals that the complainant booked Corporate Edition of Mercedes Benz Car, and the same was duly signed by him or his representative. Had the complainant noticed some of the features missing in the vehicle before the delivery, he would have refused to take the delivery of the said car. Even the complainant made the huge payment after satisfying himself before the delivery of the Corporate Edition car and the said Edition was duly delivered to him by Opposite Party No. 2. The complainant has alleged in para No. 2 of his complaint that he alongwith his two friends was given a demonstration of the car and he had taken a test drive of the same at Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was offered by the representative of Opposite Party No. 2 and the said demo car was fully equipped with all the accessories and features such as reverse sensors, footstep board, airmatic suspension, head-light automatic washers, memory seats, parking/handbrake automatic controls on steering itself etc. On the other hand, Opposite Party No. 2, in para No. 2 of its written statement, denied that the test drive of the vehicle, in question, was given at the premises of Punjab and Haryana High Court and it was also denied that the vehicle, which was test driven by the complainant, was equipped with features, as alleged by him. So, it is not believable that the complainant did not know about all the variants/models and price of the said models of the Mercedes Benz Car because he is a designated Senior Advocate and being a highly qualified person, he must be aware about the features of the Corporate Edition model and other Editions of the said car. Moreover, the complainant placed on record the brochure Annexure P-1 alongwith his complaint but as per Opposite Party No.2, it was for the new model of the said car, which was launched on 15.5.2012 and its cost was Rs.66 lacs i.e. more than about Rs.20 lacs of the car purchased by the complainant. The car was booked by the complainant on 28.04.2012 and was delivered to him by that time, new model of the car launched on 15.05.2012 could not possibly come into existence. The brochure Annexure P-1 produced by the complainant was, thus, of the new model of the car launched on 15.05.2012 and did not relate to the car booked by him and, ultimately, delivered to him. He, therefore, could not take any benefit from Annexure P-1. It is important to note that there was a lot of difference between the price of the car of the complainant and the new model of the said car launched on 15.05.2012. It was the duty of the complainant to check all the models, prices and specifications of the car, which he wanted to purchase. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant chose the Corporate Edition of the Mercedes Benz Car, which was duly delivered by Opposite Party No. 2 to him and, as such, there was no fault on its (Opposite Party No.2) part. The Opposite Parties were, thus, neither deficient in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The complaint, filed by the complainant, is, thus, liable to be dismissed.

13.            For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, filed by the complainant, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.    

14.            Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.            The file, be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

21.07.2015                                                                 Sd/- 

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER