DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No. 247 of 13-9-2019

Decided on : 14-06-2023

Brij Lal S/o Sh. Neki Ram aged about 56 years R/o Street No. 5, Durga Nagri, Abohar, District Fazlika.

........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s. Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd., 8^th Mile Stone, Goniana Road, Bathinda, through its Managing Director/Manager/Proprietor/Director.

2. Renault India Private Limited,Regional Office, 502, 5^th Floor, Town Centre II, Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400059 through its Chairman/Managing Director

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. K K Vinocha, Advocate, for OP No.1.

Sh. Ashok Bharti, Advocate, for OP No. 2

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

1. The complainant Brij Lal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( Now C.P. Act, 2019 here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this forum (Now Commission) against M/s Benchmark Motors Pvt. Ltd., & another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased a new Renault Duster SUV vehicle manufactured by opposite party No.2 having temporary registration No.PB-22S-6421,Chasis No. MEEHSRAWEH 8017410, Engine No. E 053251 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 16.10.2017 against which opposite party No.2 charged Rs.12,92,493/- but issued invoice of Rs.11,45,882/- against the rules and rates of opposite party No. 2.

3. It is alleged that at the time of negotiation for purchase, opposite party No.1 issued proforma invoice for Rs. 12,02,403/- showing details of charges including Rs. 68,333/- as registration charges. That complainant bonafidely paid Rs.50,000/- on 10.10.2017 in cash against receipt and Rs.12,92,493/- by way of RTGS on 17.10.2017 as per demand of opposite parties presuming that the said charges and price is being legally charged by the opposite party as per performa invoice and Diwali offer which offered a gold coin of 2 grams, insurance @ Rs. 1/- & cash discount of Rs.10,000/-. The opposite party No.1 got all the necessary documents filled and also got copies of various documents required for the registration of the vehicle and other formalities. The complainant bonafidely believed that the registration certification of above said vehicle will be got issued from concerned authority at Fazilka and will be handed over to him in due course by the opposite party but till date the same has not been supplied to the complainant. The complainant has been compelled to ply the vehicle on road without registration whereas the same is mandatory.

4. The complainant alleged that at the time of negotiation of sale, as per advertisements and at the time of issuance of performa invoice, opposite parties had agreed to give a cash discount of Rs.10,000/- and a gold coin two grams or Rs.6000/- in cash and insurance @ Re.1/- but the gold coin has not been given till date. Further the vehicle cost has been charged and shown in excess than invoice price and other charges have also been taken wrongly and also in excess against rules which the complainant is entitled to recover from the opposite parties.

5. It is alleged that the complainant had to get the registration certificate of its own after lot of harassment and efforts. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to refund the amount of Rs. 58,098/- charged in excess and also to give gold coin and also pay penalty for late registration @Rs.20/- per day but the opposite parties failed to pay the same rather the opposite parties are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant got served legal notice dated 02.07.2018, upon the opposite party in this regard but the opposite party neither gave reply to the said legal notice nor refunded the above said amount of Rs.58,098/- nor gave gold coin of Rs.6000/- or penalty charges of registration @ Rs.20/- per day.

6. Due to non supply of registration certificate, non giving of gold coin and charging of excess amount from the complainant, the complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment etc. for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.

7. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 58,098/- charged in excess and give gold coin of 2 grams or Rs. 6,000/- as per scheme and also pay penalty for late registration @ Rs. 20/- per day from the date of purchase till registration alongwith interest @18% p.a. in addition to Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.

8. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their respective counsel and filed separate written reply, The opposite party No. 1 in its written reply raised preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and that the complaint is totally false and frivolous.

9. It has been pleaded that opposite party No.1 had already transferred excess amount of Rs.9,993/- to the account of the complainant being assured by opposite party No. 1 on 09/03/2018 which is clearly reflected in the statement of account. On 17/10/2019 an amount of Rs.6,000/- has also been transferred in the account of complainant and this fact also reflected in the statement of account. Thus, the present complaint is nothing and is mere an abuse of process of law against opposite party No. 1.

10. It has also been pleaded that the allegations leveled regarding the registration certificate is totally false and frivolous. In fact, the complainant himself did not turn up to fulfill the requirements of the registration certificate inspite of the continuous correspondence by opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that the delivery of the vehicle has been taken by Mr. Pawan Kumar, son of the complainant and Officials of opposite party No. 1 fully explained all the calculations to him and he after understanding all terms and calculations has duly signed the Manual Z form.

11. It has been further pleaded that the insurance against charges of Rs. 1/- was not bumper to bumper full insurance as per scheme but complainant chosen full insurance of the vehicle in question from bumper to bumper by himself paying additional charges on that account which came to 10,487/-.

12. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 has reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

13. The opposite party No. 2 in its written reply raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as it is not a consumer dispute. The relationship between opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 is of an independent contractor and neither of the parties can be made liable the acts/omissions of each other. The relationship between the opposite parties was on a 'Principal to Principal' basis and not that of a principal and agent, which is enumerated in the Dealership Agreement executed between the Opposite Parties. The opposite party No. 2 is not connected with the present dealing.

14. It has been pleaded that the said vehicle was sold to the complainant by opposite party No. 1 and not by opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 is only involved in manufacturing of vehicles produced under Renault brand name. The opposite party No. 2 does not deal or interact with the persons for sale of the vehicles and sell its vehicle to Authorised dealers, which subsequently sell the said vehicle to customer as per their wishes without interference of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 was not involved in sale of the said vehicle to the complainant and no consideration was allegedly paid by the complainant to opposite party No. 2. At no point of time, prior to sale or during sale of the said vehicle opposite party No. 2 had communicated with the complainant or had given any commitment. The opposite party No. 2 is not aware of the negotiations or the offers made by opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 had not made any representation for waiving off or subsidizing the Registration charges or insurance charges or offer of gold coin. The opposite party No. 2 is not aware or concerned with the money paid by the complainant or received by opposite party No.1. The complaint is completely devoid of merit, thoroughly motivated, misconceived and suppresses material facts with the sole motive to snatch orders from this Commission in gross abuse of the process of this Commission.

15. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 has reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all the averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for dismissal of complaint.

16. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 30.8.2019 (Ex. C-13) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12).

17. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 6-11-2019 (Ex. OP-1/1) and the documents (Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5).

18. The opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Abha Tiwari dated 24.10.2019 (Ex.OP-2/1) and the documents (Ex. OP-2/2 & Ex. OP-2/3).

19. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased one car from opposite party No. 1 manufactured by opposite party No. 2 vide tax invoice Ex. C-5 in which a total cost of the car is mentioned as Rs. 11,45,882/- whereas opposite party No. 1 illegally and unlawfully charged Rs. 12,92,493/-. The actual due payment which included cost of the car, cost of registration certificate and insurance was Rs. 12,34,395/- and besides above, the opposite party No. 1 had not given discount of Rs. 10,000/- and one gold coin of 2 gms to complainant. Moreover, the opposite party No. 1 has also delayed the registration of the car. Therefore, above said act of opposite party No. 1 amounts to deficiency in service.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has argued that complainant was provided free insurance which was comprehensive insurance against premium worth Rs. 45,677/- and since complainant intended to buy bumper to bumper insurance, as such, complainant has paid additional amount of Rs. 10,487/- and the opposite party No. 1 did not charge any excess amount. The preparation of registration certificate was delayed as complainant had failed to provide necessary documents. Moroever, the cash discount of Rs. 9993/- was paid to complainant on 9-3-2018 before filing of complaint and cost of gold coin i.e. Rs. 6,000/- was also paid on 17-10-2019. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1.

21. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has argued that relationship between opposite party No. 1 & opposite party No. 2 is that of principal to principal basis and opposite party No. 2 is not connected with the present dealing and has prayed for dismissal of complaint. To support his submissions, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has also placed reliance on :-

    i) Hon'ble National Commission in the case Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. Nagendra Prasad Sinha & Anr (Review petition No. 674 of 2004) decided on 4-5-2009.

    ii) Hon'ble National Commission in the case Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly know as Daimler Chrysler India Ltd) & Another Vs. Intercard (India) Ltd., decided on 9-5-2013.

    iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala & Anr (1994) 1 SCC 397

22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

23. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased one car from opposite party No. 1 which was manufactured by opposite party No. 2 vide Invoice Ex. C-5. However, a perusal of Proforma Invoice Ex. C-1 clearly shows that net amount to be charged is shown as Rs. 12,92,493/- and after including cost of registration and excess amount of premium for bumper to bumper insurance of Rs. 10,487/-, the opposite party No. 1 has received Rs. 22,000-/- in excess from the complainant.

24. A perusal of Manual Z Form Format produced by opposite party Ex. OP-1/3 shows that opposite party has calculated net receivable amount as Rs. 12,82,493/-. However, as per receipts Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3 opposite party received amount of Rs. 12,92,493/- meaning thereby that they charged Rs. 10,000/- in excess. As well as Ex show room price of the vehicle is shown as Rs. 11,69,300/- whereas as per Tax Invoice Ex. C-5, total Ex show price of the car is Rs. 11,45,882/- meaning thereby that the opposite party No. 1 has overcharged Rs. 23,518/-. The opposite party received Rs. 45,677/- as insurance premium whereas policy of insurance on record shows the premium as Rs. 32,635/- meaning thereby that the opposite party charged Rs. 13,042/- in excess. Therefore, in this way, the opposite party No. 1 charged Rs. 46,560/- in excess from the complainant.

25. So far as the cash discount is concerned, the same was payable on 16-10-2017. However, the said amount was transferred in the account of the complainant on 19-3-2018 and cost of gold coin was paid on 17-10-2019. Admittedly, registration certificate of the car was also prepared after considerable delay which is evident from copy of registration certificate Ex. C-11. The delay in preparation of registration certificate is admitted by opposite party No. 1 with excuse of non supply of documents but this Commission is of the view that opposite party No. 1 has not specified as to which documents were pending and whether opposite party No. 1 wrote any letter to the complainant to complete the documents. Hence, this Commission is of the considered opinion that evidence placed on file fully proved deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1.

26. Accordingly, this complaint is partly allowed against opposite party No. 1 and complainant is held entitled to receive Rs. 46,560/- alongwith interest @9% w.e.f. 16-10-2017 till realization, charged in excess by opposite party No. 1 and complainant is also held entitled to receive interest @9% p.a. on the cash discount amount of Rs. 10,000/- w.e.f 16-10-2017 to 9-3-2018 and interest @9% on the amount of Rs. 6,000/- i.e. cost of gold coin w.e.f. 16-10-2017 to 17-10-2019. The complainant is also held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment for delay caused in preparation of registration certificate of the car.

27. So far as liability to pay the above said amount is concerned, since opposite party No. 2 has proved on record that relationship between opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 was on principal to principal basis as per relevant extract of dealership agreement Ex. OP-1/3 and since said document is not denied by opposite party No. 1, as such, amount assessed shall be paid by opposite party No. 1. Hence, complaint against opposite party No. 2 stands dismissed.

28. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

29. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

30. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced

    14-06-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member