THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 214 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 5.8.2014.
Date of Decision: -11.09.2015.
Pritam son of Sh. Rajpal, resident of village Sai, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Daisy Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. SCF 23-24-25 Red Square Market Hisar Showroom 11 km stone Delhi bypass, Hisar thorugh Branch Circular Road near Hanuman Dhani, Bhiwani.
- Ford India Pvt. Ltd. S.P. Kolli Post, Chengalpattu.
- Magma Fincrop Ltd., Narayana Complex, 1st Floor Civil Road, Rohtak.
- Royal Sundarma Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Legal & TP department Subramaniain Building 2nd Floor No. 1, Club House Road, Chennai.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for complainant
Shri Ashwani Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
None for Op no. 2.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 3.
Sh. Balbir Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 4.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a Ford Figo Diesel ZXI car 2014 Model from OP no. 1 by making payment of Rs. 1,33,700/-as down payment and Rs. 4,60,000/- by way of cheque as finance amount to the OP no. 1 thus a total amount of Rs. 5,93,700/- stands paid to the OP no. 1. It is alleged that the car was purchased by making the payment as per the demand of OP no. 1 for 2014 but the OP no. 1 delivered the card of model 2013 as such the complainant was deputed by the OP no. 1 and delivered a down model of car causing loss of Rs. 50,000/- to the complaint and this complain was made to the OP no. 2 but they did not care. It is alleged that the OP no. 1 charged Rs. 5,93,700/- but they have given the invoice of Rs. 5,50,000/- again duped the complainant of Rs. 43,700/- and they have given the insurance cover of vehicle for Rs. 5,45,775/- again showing the less value and coverage of risk of the vehicle and they have again duped the complainant in insurance also. It is alleged that letter dated 28.3.2014 clear cut shows the sanction of loan Rs. 4,60,000/- and margin money of Rs. 1,33,700/- received at the time of delivery by OP no. 1 and total cost shows as Rs. 5,74,500/- down payment of Rs. 1,14,500/- other finance of Rs. 3876/- and amount financed is Rs. 4,63,876/- as shown in the detail of financer but OP no. 1 is giving quotation of Rs. 5,74,500/- but received the amount of Rs. 5,93,700/- against the invoice of Rs. 5,50,000/- as such received Rs. 43,700/- as excess amount from the complainant for which complainant is entitled to get back along with interest @ 24% per annum from the OPs. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that total cost of the car after calculation became Rs. 5,49,500/- out of which the complainant has deposited Rs. 1,08,700/- and amount to be paid at the time of delivery of the vehicle was calculated to Rs. 4,40,800/-. It is submitted that the answering respondent received a cheque of Rs. 4,40,800/- bearing no. 94690150 issued by the Magma Fincorp Ltd. of dated 20.4.2014. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not stated the facts about the letter dated 28.3.2014. It is submitted that the statement of the complainant is vague with no other details apart from the bifurcation of the amount. It is submitted that on perusal of the registration certificate issued by the transport authority the vehicle is of the year 2014. It is submitted that the answering respondent is an international motor company of over a century year old and the vehicle manufactured by the answering respondent enjoys an excellent repudiation in the automobile all across the globe and its Ford Figo Car has been received maximum awards from critics, experts and from viewers of various TC channels. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. OP no. 3 also filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent has no branch office at Bhiwani. It is submitted that complainant never approached the answering respondent with regard to any dispute between him and Ops no. 1 & 2. It is submitted that the complainant approached the answering respondent i.e. OP no. 3 with a request to advance a loan of Rs. 463876/- for purchase of Ford Figo Car from OP no. 1 which was manufactured by OP no. 2. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. OP no. 4 filed written statement alleging therein that 4th opposite party had issued policy to the complainant based on the declaration of made on the value of the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 545775/- and further while insuring the vehicle the total taxes paid and as shown in the invoice are not taken into consideration. It is submitted that the main allegation of the complainant is against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties on account of various allegations. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-13 alongwith supporting affidavit.
7. In reply thereto, the counsel for OP no. 1 has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-9, counsel for the OP no. 3 has tendered into the evidence document Annexure R-1 and counsel for the OP no. 4 also tendered into the evidence document Annexure R-1 alongwith supporting affidavits.
8. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant paid down payment of Rs. 1,33,700/- and Rs. 4,60,000/- by way of cheque being the amount of finance paid by OP no. 1 to purchase the car in question. Thus, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 5,93,700/- to the OP but the OP has given a invoice of Rs. 5,50,000/- as such the OP has charged the excess amount of Rs. 43,700/-.
10. Learned counsel for Opposite Party no. 1 reiterated the contents of his reply. He submitted that the complainant deposited Rs. 108700/- + Rs. 680/- on 24.3.2014 as down payment with the OP vide indent form duly signed by him. In the said indent the cost of the car was Rs. 5,74,500/- and there was also a discount of Rs. 25,000/- + amount of insurance. After giving the discount the price of the car came to Rs. 5,49,500/- which was paid by the complainant out of which Rs. 108700/- was paid by the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs. 4,40,800/- was payable at the time of delivery. After getting cheque of Rs. 4,40,800/- issued by the finance company the OP no. 3, the vehicle was delivered to the complainant alongwith the necessary documents mentioned in para no. 8 of the reply.
11. Learned counsel for the OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply.
12. Learned counsel for the OP no. 4 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant has taken the private car package policy from OP no. 4. He submitted that there is no allegation made by the complainant against the OP no. 4. The OP no. 4 is only a proforma party.
13. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. As per the allegations of the complainant, he had paid Rs. 1,33,700/- as down payment and he has also paid Rs. 4,60,000/- by way of cheque issued by the finance company to prove the aforesaid payments by the complainant to the OP the onus was on the complainant. The complainant has produced the photo copy of delivery challan Annexure A-5 and proforma invoice Annexure A-6. Both dated 24.3.2014 wherein cost of car has been mentioned as 5,74,500/-. Photocopy of invoice Annexure A-10 which has been issued by the OP in favour of the complainant for the cost of Rs. 5,50,000/- of the car. No document has been produced by the complainant to prove the alleged down payment of Rs. 1,33,700/- and cheque of Rs. 4,60,000/- On the other side, the OP no. 2 has produced copy of indent deal form dated 24.3.2014 Annexure R-4, wherein the cost of car has been mentioned as Rs. 5,74,500/- and the discount have been mentioned as Rs. 25,000/- that insurance and the cash amount has been mentioned 108700/-, insurance amount Rs. 680/- and finance amount has been mentioned as 4,40,800/-. It has been contended by the counsel for OP no. 2 that said indent deal form form Annexure R-4 has been signed by the complainant. The OP no. 2 has also produced the photo copy of cheque no. 690150 dated 2.4.2014 for Rs. 4,40,800/- drawn on Axis Bank, Annexure R-9 and issued by OP no. 3 in favour of OP no. 1. The counsel for the OP no. 2 submitted that the assertions of the OP no. 2 stands proved from Annexure R-4 and Annexure R-9. The complainant has miserably failed to prove the down payment of Rs. 1,33,700/- and the cheque amount of Rs. 4,60,000/- in support of his contention, while the OP no. 2 has successfully proved their contention of down payment of Rs. 108700/- and cheque payment of Rs. 4,40,800/-. In view of the facts, detailed hereinabove, the complaint of the complainant cannot succeed. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-11.09.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
