| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/225/16 Date of Institution:- 18.05.2016 Order Reserved on:- 18.03.2024 Date of Decision:- 24.07.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: - Gulati
95, Vishal, Nehru Place, New Delhi .….. Complainant VERSUS - M/s Ford India Pvt. Ltd.
Thorugh its Managing Director, -
DLF Phase II, Gurgaon – 122002 - M/s Delhi Ford,
A 2/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Africa Avenue, New Delhi – 110029 - M/s Riddhi Ford,
B-1/F-8, MCIE, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044 - M/s Bennet, Coleman & Co. Ltd.
Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110003 …..Opposite Parties Suresh Kumar Gupta, President - The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that OP-1 is a manufacturer of the cars under brand name “Ford”. OP-2 and 3 are the authorised car dealers of OP-1.OP-1 during the end of 2015 decided to entice the innocent customers by issuing newspaper advertisements in daily national newspapers including daily newspaper published by OP-4. The OP-1 published an advertisement dated 20.10.2015 in Times of India. The advertisement says “Ford Mega exchange 20-22 October” in Bold Letters and also claim that get benefits of up to 25000* on exchange of old car with a picture of bright red eco-sport car with Ford Eco-Sport price starts at Rs.6.80#. Limited period offer and all in bold letters. The symbols of
* and # have been used to denote the fine print which respectively stated terms and conditions applied and # all prices ex-showroom Delhi for Eco-sport Ambiente Petrol (Solid) and Figo Expire Ambiente Petro (Solid Variant). This offer is valid on select variants only for Eco-Sport and FigoAspire with booking done on October 20,2015 to October, 22 (both days inclusive) with full payment made on or before October 31, 2015. The exchange bonus on Eco-Sport variant will be 25000 on exchange of Ford car and Rs.18,000/- on non-ford car. The exchange bonus on select variant on Ford Aspire will be Rs.10,000/-. The valuation of the old car may differ and is by independent values appointed by Ford India Dealers.Colours are indicative and features may vary from model to model. For more details please check with your nearest Ford dealer. He read the advertisement. He was influenced by the misleading words,false claim and deceptive clauses and therefore visited OP-2 and 3 to enquire about the ford mega exchange. Both the dealers evaluated the value of his old car and price was nowhere close to the tune of Rs.18,000/- as promised for a non-ford car. The advertisement is a deceptive advertisement which was knowingly and wilfully issued to create a false impression in the mind of consumer by handing over old car and replace with anew car, the value of which will depreciate rapidly. A duty is casted upon OP-1 to observe caution and not to misrepresent any scheme. The price of eco-sport car was listed at Rs.679563/- with the dealers. He issued cheque no.637915 dated 22.10.2015 drawn on Axis Bank and cheque no.637914 dated 22.10.2015 drawn on Axis Bank on the amount shown in the advertisement and sent to OP-2 and 3 with covering letter dated 22.10.2015. OP-2 and 3 have failed to issue the receipt and failed to honour the deal as mentioned in the advertisement which constituted restricted trade practice, deficiency in service etc. An email dated 26.10.2015 was written to Customer Relation Officer of OP-1 regarding the higher price demanded by OP-2 and 3 which was duly replied vide email dated 26.10.2015. He was not satisfied with the response and issue another email dated 28.10.2015 which was duly replied. He has not received any confirmation about the delivery of vehicle though payment as per advertisement has been made. He has received an email dated 02.11.2015 from OP-3 that cheques of Rs.6.50/- for eco-sport Ambiente Petrol has been received which is not acceptable as a booking formality and cheque of minimum 10000/- of booking amount should be issued. He has received another email dated 03.11.2015 from OP-2 to the effect that book eco-sport car Ambiente Diesel for booking amount of Rs.50,000/-.He sent a notice through email to OP-1 for the delivery of the vehicle as amount as per advertisement has been paid. The benefits as per advertisement have been denied by the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP-1 has filed the reply with the averments that complainant has failed to show any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 to bring the compliant within the ambit of Act.The relationship with the dealers is on principal to principal basis. OP-1 is liable for manufacturing defects. The main grievance of the complainant is with respect to alleged exchange bonus as well as advertised price of the car and non-receipt of caras promised under the advertisement issued by OP-1. The complainant has issued cheque Rs.6.80/- to OP-2 and 3 as an booking amount. OP-2 and 3 have brought to the notice of the complainant as amount is insufficient to place an order to booking of car. A bare perusal of the advertisement makes it clear that ford eco-sport model starts from Rs.6.80 lakh and terms and conditions enumerated below will have to be complied with. The complainant is nothing but an imposter and complaint is nothing but asham in the eyes of law which needs dismissal. The value of the exchange bonus is applicable but depending upon the valuation of the car. The complainant has not suffered any damage so in terms of Section 14 (d) of the Act so he is not entitled for any damages. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of the parties. OP-1 does not collect any moneyfrom and consumers as it is done by the dealers. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP-1.
- OP-4has filed reply to the effect that OP4 has nothing to do with the business dealing between the complainant and OP-1 to 3.The advertisement material as supplied by the advertiser is published and newspaper has no role to play in the advertisement or services offered by the advertiser. OP-4 has only published the advertisement and is in no way connected with the purchase or sale of the product advertised.
- OP-3did not appear despite due service and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 12.05.2017.
- OP-2 did not appear despite due service. OP-2 did not contest the case.
- The complainant has filed their rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statement.
- The parties were directed to lead the evidence.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents annexed with the complaint.
- OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Sh. MirzaQaiserIqbal, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.OP1/1 i.e. copy of Board Resolution, Ex.OP1/2 i.e. dealership agreement, Ex.OP1/3 i.e. Trailing mail.
- OP-4 has filed the affidavit of Sh. RajanVaid, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement.
- We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1. The time was given to the OP-2 and 4 to address the arguments within the 7 working days but they have not turned up thereafter. We havealso perused the entire material on record.
- It is clear from the pleading of the parties that advertisement Ex.1 (annexed with the complaint) is nowhere disputed by the parties. The exchange of emails between the parties is nowhere in dispute.
- The question that needs consideration is whether advertisement Ex.1 is a misleading or deceptiveadvertisement or not.
- Section 2 (1) (r) of the Act covers false advertisement under the definition of unfair trade practices. The unfair trade practice means a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale adopts unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice.
- Honesty and truthfulness are the essential ethical principles for all the business practices including advertisements. The misleading advertisement create uneven playing field thereby giving unfair advantage to the advertiser by violating the principle of fairness. The misleading advertisements allure individuals to make purchasing decision based on false promises. A false or misleading advertisement omits essential information about the product.The lucrative sales offeris also a part of misleading advertisement or unfair trade practice. Any advertisement which omits important information comes within the ambit of misleading advertisement thus an unfair trade practice. To our mind, misleading advertisement comes within the ambit of unfair trade practices as defined under Section 2 (1) (r) of the Act.
- The advertisement Ex.1 shows that Ford Eco-Sport price starts at Rs.6.80# and that of Ford FigoAspire starts at Rs.4.9#. The # has been explained in the lower part of the advertisement that terms and condition shall apply and all prices are Ex-showroom Delhi for Eco-Sport Ambiente Petrol (Solid) and Figo Aspire Ambiente Petrol (Solid).
- We have perused the advertisement. The price range starts from Rs.6.80# and Rs.4.89# for Ford Eco-sport and Ford Aspire. The advertisement does not show that the price starts with Rs.6.80 lakh as claimed by OP-1 in the evidence. The advertisement is silent about the price of the car. The price of car is nowhere reflected in the advertisement Ex.1 though it says that all prices are ex-showroom and terms and conditions shall apply but this does not further the defence of the OP-1 that price of the car is Rs.6.8 lakh.
- The OP-1 has nowhere come with the plea that dealers have got published the advertisement without its knowledge.
- The OP-1 has not come out with corrigendum or with fresh advertisement that price has been inadvertently shown as Rs.6.80# and Rs.4.89# in the advertisement Ex.1 for the reasons best known to OP-1.
- OP-1, 2 & 3 knew that no car is available for a sum of Rs.6.80# or Rs.4.89# but even then an advertisement was published by showing the price of car starting from Rs.6.80# or Rs.4.89# with lucrative exchange offers. The actual price of the car is an important information and said information was omitted from the advertisement for the reasons best known to OP-1 and thereby brings this advertisement within the ambit of misleading advertisement. The price of the car at Rs.6.80# or Rs.4.89#is shown just to draw the attention of the prospective buyers who should visit the showroom of dealers for the purchase of the car. The advertisement is an allurement on the part of the OP-1 to 3. The complainant has given the cheque of Rs.6.80# to OP-2 and 3 for the booking of the car but the car was not booked on the premise that booking amount of the car is much more. The complainant has send the cheques to OP-2 and 3 on the basis of advertisement which nowhere reflected that price of the car is Rs.6.80 lakh and particular amount is required to book the car. Such type of advertisement completely misleads the consumer. Such kinds of advertisements are misleading which comes within the ambit of unfair trade practice. The complainant has acted upon the misleading advertisementand faced mental harassment as car was never booked by OP-2 and 3 by alleging that amount furnished by the complainant is too low to book the car.
- OP-4 has published the advertisement as supplied to him. OP-4 is not bound to see whether the advertisement is deceptive or misleading as it is the duty of the person who gives the advertisement to see whether it is deceptive or misleading. There is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice on the part of OP-4 and accordingly complaint against OP-4 is dismissed.
- In view of our aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 to 3 as a result the complaint of the complainant is allowed against OP-1 to 3 to the effect that OP-1 to 3 shall pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental harassment and agony coupled with litigation expenses. The Commission can take the judicial notice of the fact that OP-1 has closed its manufacturing of cars in India but service centres of the cars manufactured by OP-1 are in operation. The OP-2 and 3 are still the car dealers as well as service centres of OP-1. OP-2 and 3 are directed in future they should clearly specify the price of the car in bold letters in the advertisement for the benefit of the consumers.The OP1 to 3are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @9% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 24.07.2024.
| |
