Haryana

Karnal

CC/595/2019

Prem Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Modern Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Rana

12 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 595 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.04.09.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 12.03.2021

 

Prem Parkash son of Shri Sohan Lal Sharma resident of village Kunjpura Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Modern Automobiles, 7 Meerut Road, Karnal through its Managing Director.

2.     Maruti-Suzuki India Ltd. Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi (India).

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.      

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present: Shri Parshant Pahwa counsel for complainant.

                Shri Ashok Kumar Vohra counsel for OP no.1.

                None for OP no.2.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that complainant was interested to purchase Ertiga ZXI Car manufactured by OP no.2. He visited the office of OP no.1 on 12.07.2019 where Mr. Ajay Rana A salesman of the OP no.1 met with complainant and he told the cost and other expenses of the said vehicle. He asked the complainant that the complainant has to pay Rs.10,30,440/- for getting on road said car with all complete documents, insurance and R.C. Complainant interested to purchase the abovesaid car but said salesman stated that still said car is not available and thereafter, he instigated the complainant for purchase of ZDI car for which he gave oral quotation of Rs.12,11,296/- which including road tax, RC, insurance etc. On asking of the salesman, complainant deposited booking amount of Rs.11000/- to OP no.1. Complainant took loan of Rs.10,50,000/- from Sarav Haryana Gramin Bank Ltd. Kunjpura, Karnal and visited the OP no.1 for getting delivery of said vehicle. OP no.1 claimed an amount of Rs.12,21,992/- instead of Rs.12,11,296/-. Complainant requested OP no.1 not to back out from their original quotation but OP no.1 did not bother for the same. Thereafter, OP no.1 showed a ZDI Ertiga Car to the complainant and he found that there were many scratches on the said vehicle. The complainant refused to accept the said defective vehicle and asked for supplying for a brand new clear and clean vehicle. OP no.1 called the complainant after 2-3 days but same was not delivered to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant send many e.mails to the OP no.1 and other head offices of the OP no.2, but nothing has been done by OP no.2. However, OP no.1 and 2 were pressurising the complainant to accept the said car. Complainant refused to accept the same and asked for refunding of booking amount, but OP no.1 refused to refund the same. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1. Therefore, through this complaint, complainant prayed for directing the OPs to refund the booking amount of Rs.11,000/- with interest, to pay Rs.25000/- which he has to born as processing fee of bank loan and interest born by the complainant from the period from 18.07.2019 to 26.07.2019, to pay Rs.one lakh as compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.11000/-.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the salesman of the OP no.1 gave quotation of ZDI car on the request of complainant to the tune of Rs.12,11,296/- which includes road tax, RC and insurance etc. then the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11000/- at his free will and consent and as such the OP no.1 booked the said car vide receipt no.722 dated 12.07.2019. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 made demand of Rs.12,21,992/- due to the fact that no doubt the sale price of said car is Rs.12,11,296/- for which the quotation was given but the Tax collected at source was not included as it is included at the sale of the vehicle, so a sum of Rs.10,696/- was included in the quotated car value. The reason for dispute came out as the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the tax collected at source (TCS). The quotation as given without TCS, so there is no wrong on the part of the OP no.1 in any manner.  It is further pleaded that ZDI Ertiga car which was liked and checked thoroughly by the complainant was offered to him which the complainant refused to took the delivery due to the reasons best known to him. It is denied that OP no.1 refused to refund the book amount, even today OP no.1 has been willing and interested to refund the booking amount.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear but sent his written version by post raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.2 sells its products to its authorized dealers and relationship between the OP no.2 and the dealer is that of Principal to Principal basis only as per the dealership agreement executed between the OPs. It is further pleaded that OP no.2 sells the vehicles to its authorized dealers who sell the same to their customer under their own invoice and sale certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, complainant entered into an independent transaction for sale of the vehicle in question with OP no.1 when the booking amount was paid to OP no.1. The OP no.2 was neither privy nor received any consideration for the said transaction. There was no communication between the complainant and the OP no.2 and no assurance of any kind was given to the complainant by the OP no.2. Hence, in the absence of any assurance or relation there is no cause for any dispute between the complainant and OP no.2. It is further pleaded that averments related to scratches and defective vehicle are false, frivolous and without any basis. It is further pleaded that complainant gave the booking amount to OP no.1 and the complainant has sought the relief of refund of booking amount from OP no.1 only. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, rough estimate of vehicle Ex.C1, draft of Rs.10,50,000/- Ex.C2, Proforma invoice dated 18.07.2019 Ex.C3, advance receipt of Rs.11,000/- Ex.C4, interest of draft Rs.2503/- and chasis number of defective vehicle Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 08.10.2020 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of D.P. Chopra Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 15.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             Learned counsel of OP no.2 on 28.01.2021 suffered a statement that written version of OP no.2 be read as evidence of OP no.2.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of all the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant was interested to purchase Ertiga ZXI car and for that purpose on 12.07.2019, he visited the office of OP No.1 where Mr.Ajay Rana, salesman of OP No.1 met the complainant, who told the price of Ertiga ZXI as Rs.10,30,440/- but due to non-availability of that model, the said salesman instigated the complainant for purchasing Ertiga ZDI and gave quotation of Rs.12,11,296/- which includes road tax, RC, insurance etc. Complainant deposited Rs.11,000/- as token money with OP No.1 vide receipt No.72 dated 12.07.2019. Complainant has taken loan of Rs.10,50,000/- from Sarav Haryana Gramin Bank Ltd. Kunjpura, Karnal and visited with OP No.1 for getting delivery of the said vehicle and the complainant got surprised when OP No.1 claimed an amount of Rs.12,21,992/- instead of Rs.12,11,296/-. When the complainant objected on this, the OP No.1 did not bother. He further argued that in order to sell their vehicles OP No.1 intentionally gives quotation of less amount and lateron when the persons visit for delivery of vehicle, they demanded higher amount than the quotation.  He further argued that OP No.1 had shown a ZDI Ertiga Car to the complainant but there were many scratches on the said vehicle and complainant requested to OP No.1 for giving a neat and clean car but the OP No.1 did not bother to the request of the complainant. Hence, prayed for allowing the present complaint. 

9.             Per-contra, learned counsel for OP No.1 argued that the salesman of the OP No.1 gave quotation of ZDI car on the request of the complainant to the tune of Rs.12,11,296/- which includes road tax, registration certificate and insurance etc, then the complainant deposited Rs.11,000/- at his free will and consent and OP No.1 booked the car vide receipt No.722 dated 12.07.2019. He further argued that OP No.1 made demand of Rs.12,21,992/- due to the fact that the sale price of the said car was Rs.12,11,296/- for which the quotation was issued but the tax collected at source was not included and it is included at the sale of vehicle, so a sum of Rs.10,696/- was to be included. The quotation was given without TCS, so there is no wrong on the part of the OP No.1 in any manner. He further argued that there were no scratches on the said car but the complainant refused to take delivery for the reasons best known to him only. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

10.           It is pertinent to mention here that none has appeared on behalf of OP No.2, however, OP No.2 sent written version through speed post with the request that this written version may be treated as complete submission inclusive of written version, evidence and written arguments on behalf of OP No.2. 

11.           For the sake of gravity and in order to avoid repetition, this Commission is not to reproduce here the written version filed on behalf of OP No.2, however, the same has been considered. 

12.           Admittedly, the complainant approached with OP No.1 for purchase of Ertiga Car and OP No.1 issued quotation to the tune of Rs.12,11,296/- and on this the complainant deposited Rs.11,000/- as token money with the OP No.1 and lateron, the OP No.1 demanded Rs.12,21,992/-.

13.           The question for consideration before this Commission is that whether the quotation for an amount of Rs.12,21,992/- was rightly issued by the OP No.1 or not?

14.           The OP No.1 has taken a plea that on the request of complainant they have issued quotation to the tune of Rs.12,11,296/- which includes road tax, RC and insurance etc. and lateron they demanded Rs.12,21,992/- due to the fact that tax collected at source was not mentioned in the quotation issued by their sales man. In order to prove its plea OP No.1 did not place on record not even a single document except affidavit of Shri D.P.Chopra. Hence, the OP No.1 has failed to prove its case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. The act of OP No.1 for issuing quotation of less amount and lateron demanding higher amount than the quotation, is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice while issuing the quotation of the lesser amount than the actual demand amount. 

15.           On the other hand, OP No.2, in its written version submitted that OP No.2 does not sell the vehicles so manufactured by it to any individual customer directly. It sells the vehicles to its authorized dealers who sell the same to their customers under their own invoice and sale certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the complainant entered into an independent transaction for sale of the vehicle in question with OP No.1 while the booking amount was paid to OP No.1. The OP No.2 had neither privy nor received any consideration for the said transaction. There was no communication between the complainant and OP No.2 and no assurance of any kind was given to complainant by OP No.2. Hence, in the absence of any assurance or relation, there is no cause for any dispute between the complainant and OP No.2. In the present case neither any consideration was paid to OP No.2 nor there is a dispute with regard to manufacturing defect of the vehicle, hence, OP No.2 has no role to play, in the present case. 

16.           The fact that OP No.1 gave quotation to the tune of Rs.12,11,296/- and demanding Rs.12,21,992/- from the complainant at the time of delivery is admitted on record. It is also admitted that the complainant paid Rs.11,000/- as booking amount to the OP No.1. In order to prove these facts, the complainant also placed on record Performa invoice Ex.C3 wherein clearly depicts that OP No.1 has demanded Rs.12,21,992/- and copy of receipt Ex.C4 which shows that complainant has deposited Rs.11,000/- with the OP No.1.

17.           In order to prove the fact that the complainant has taken a loan for an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- from Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, Kunjpura Karnal, he has placed on record copy of demand draft amounting to Rs.10,50,000/- as Ex.C2. In this regard, we are of the considered view that the complainant has obtained the loan for his own facility i.e. for purchasing of the car and if the complainant has not purchased the car it is his own wish and for this the OPs cannot be held liable for making payment of interest as well as processing fees paid by the complainant while obtaining loan. Further, the plea taken by the complainant that there were scratches on the car and that is why he did not purchase the same. Firstly, he has not placed on record not even a single photograph of the vehicle showing scratches on it; secondly, if it is presumed that there were scratches on the car and there was no other car available of the same make in the showroom of the OP No.1, then the complainant may request OP No.1 to arrange another car of the same make but the complainant did not chose to purchase the same for the reason best known to him. Hence, the complainant is not liable for the interest as well as processing fees incurred by him while obtaining loan. Hence, the complainant is only liable for Rs.11,000/- which he has paid as token money with the OP No.1.   

18.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 to refund an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 12.03.2021                                                                    

                                                                      President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

      Member                               Member