DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  210

                                                Instituted on:    15.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       29.08.2017

Neeru Jain wife of Deepak Jin son of Rattan Lal Jain, resident of Mohalla Patel Street, Near Club Chowk, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     M/s.Global Toyota, Authorised Dealer: Global Automobiles (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director, Sangrur-Patiala Road, Village Bhindra, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

2.     M/s.Global Toyota, authorized Dealer: Global Automobiles (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director, B-51, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali-160055.

3.     M/s. Toyota Kisloskar Motor (P) Ltd, through its Managing Director, Corporate Office: Vittal Mallaya Road, Bangalore (Karnataka).

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :       Shri Gurtej Chahal, Adv.

For OP No.3             :       Shri M.S.Sethi, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Smt. Neeru Jain,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 4.5.2017, the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting booked one Innova Crysta diesel model car with the OP number 1 for ex showroom price of Rs.15,14,200/- and other charges i.e. total Rs.16,42,398/- and discount of Rs.15,000/- was given to the complainant, meaning thereby the complainant had to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.16,27,398/- and as such on 4.5.2017 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.51,000/- to the OP number 1 in advance through cheque, which was got encashed and further the complainant was asked to get delivery of the vehicle on 12.5.2017 after payment of Rs.15,76,398/- to the OP number 1.  Further case of the complainant is that on 12.5.2017 the complainant visited the OP number 1, but the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 demanded an amount of Rs.20,000/- in excess than the agreed price.  As such, the OP number 1 refused to deliver the vehicle in question to the complainant.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to deliver the above said vehicle after taking an amount of Rs.15,76,398/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  However, it has been admitted that the complainant got booked the vehicle in question on 4.5.2017 for Rs.16,27,398/- and further it is admitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.51,000/- in advance to OP number 1.  The case of the OPs is that on 5.5.2017 the complainant was apprised by the OP number 1 that the price of the vehicle has been increased to the tune of Rs.21,200/-, as such the complainant visited the premises of the OP number 1 and agreed to pay for the same and he also signed the order booking form on 5.5.2017 being the new price of the vehicle as Rs.16,51,313/-.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is also averred that the OPs also requested the complainant to collect the refund cheque of Rs.51,000/- within a day or two from their dealership, but he never approached to get the same.   However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

3.             In reply filed by Op number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the relationship between the OP number 3 and dealer is on principal to principal basis and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.  It is further stated that the complaint is not maintainable.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 affidavit along with annexure OP1&2/1 to OP1&2/8 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for Op number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got booked a vehicle namely Innova Crysta diesel with the OP number 1 and paid in advance an amount of Rs.51,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.15,76,398/- was payable on 12.5.2017 at the time of delivery of the vehicle as agreed between the parties.  The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of the delivery of the vehicle the OP number 1 demanded an amount of Rs.21,200/- in excess from the complainant and as such has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP number 1.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has contended vehemently that due to increase of price of Rs.21,200/- of the vehicle on 4.5.2017, the OP number 1 has demanded the price as per the company rules.  It is further contended that the complainant visited the show room of OP number 1 on 5.5.2017 and agreed upon to take the delivery of the vehicle at the increased rate.  We have also perused the copy of the order booking form dated 5.5.2017, whereby the price of the vehicle was revised by OP number 1, but we find no signatures of the complainant on the form Ex.OP1&2/4.  We have also perused the copy of Annexure OP1&2/1 dated 4.5.2017, whereby the price of the vehicle was agreed as Rs.16,27,398/-, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 1 is deficient in service by not providing the vehicle to the complainant as per the agreed rate i.e. Rs.16,27,398/-.

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to deliver the vehicle in question after taking the amount of Rs.15,76,398/- from the complainant within a period of 15 days. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation and litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 29, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member