BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.398 of 2014
Date of institution: 29.05.2014
Date of Decision: 22.04.2016
Gurdial Singh son of Ram Dhan, resident of H.No.448/A, Labour Bureau Housing Society, Sector 49, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Globe Totota Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., through its Chairman/Managing Director, B-51, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, Mohali.
2. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., 4th Floor, Ambience Corporate Towers, Ambeience Island NH-8, Gurgaon 122001.
(Name of OP No.2 added vide order dated 23.06.2014).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Bhupinder Ghai, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Ashutosh Aggarwal, counsel for OP No.1.
Shri S.R. Bansal, counsel for OP No.2.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
- Replace the vehicle of the complainant with a new vehicle or to refund him its price i.e. Rs.3,62,560/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 26.03.2014.
- To stop the Finance Company from deducting the EMIs till disposal of the complaint.
- To pay him the registration charges of the vehicle.
- To pay him Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for mental harassment.
- To pay him Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complainant booked one Toyota Inova 2.5 G (GX) 8 S Model 2014 with OP No.1 by paying Rs.1.00 lacs as booking amount. The total price of the vehicle was Rs.12,62,560/-. Loan of Rs.9.00 lacs was got sanctioned by the complainant from Toyota Financial Services India Ltd. The balance amount of Rs.3,62,560/- was paid by the complainant in cash to the OP. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 26.03.2014. The vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. After taking delivery on 26.03.2014, on the next morning the complainant noticed that the vehicle sold by the OP No.1 is not 2014 model rather the same is 2013 model because the window panes fitted with the vehicle reveals the model to be of 2013 and even accessories of engine also revealed manufacturing year as 2013 as well as stickers labeled on the vehicle on the wiring inside out also revealed manufacturing year as 2013. The complainant brought the vehicle to OP No.1 on 27.03.2014 and by that time the vehicle had run only 154 KMs. The complainant told the OP that he will not take the vehicle back and demanded a new vehicle. However, the staff members of the OP No.1 told the complainant that Mr. Deepak Kapoor, its General would visit the house of the complainant and will do the needful. Accordingly, Mr. Deepak Kapoor visited the house of the complainant and admitted the facts of concern of the complainant and promised that either the vehicle would be replaced or its price would be returned to the complainant. The complainant has been repeatedly approaching OP No.1 to replace the vehicle but nothing has been done by the OP. The complainant even got issued legal notice but in vain. Due to unfairness of the OP, the complainant is unable to get the vehicle registered and also unable to pay the tax amount. The temporary number provided by the OP has also expired as the same was valid for one month only. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. OP No.1 in the preliminary objections of its written statement has pleaded that complainant has not disclosed any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant came to OP No.1 on 21.03.2014 for purchase of the vehicle. The complainant was informed that the Ex-showroom price of the vehicle was Rs.12,23,678/- plus insurance charges of Rs.47,684/- plus handling and temporary registration charges of Rs.3550/-. Thus the total price was to be payable by the complainant for purchase of the vehicle was Rs. 12,74,912/-. After negotiations a discount of Rs.15,000/- was allowed by the OP and amount of Rs.12,59,912/- was to be paid by the complainant. The complainant issued security cheque of Rs.50,000/- as the complainant requested to deposit the booking amount in cash and take back the security cheque of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant requested to process his loan for Rs.9.00 lacs. The loan was process on 22.03.2014 which was approved by Toyota Financial Services. The complainant was informed that the vehicle would be ready for delivery on 26.03.2014 and asked the complainant to deposit the booking amount. The complainant deposited Rs.2.00 lacs in cash and took back the security cheque of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant came to OP No.1 on 26.03.2014 to take delivery of the vehicle. While calculating the balance amount, the officials of the OP No.1 inadvertently made a calculation on the basis of Rs.10,00,000/- as loan amount instead of Rs.9,00,000/- and accordingly, the complainant was requested to pay the balance amount of Rs.62,560/- which was paid by the complainant. The vehicle alongwith documents was delivered to the complainant on 26.03.2014. The loan amount was received by OP No.1 from Toyota Finance on 29.,03.2014 and while reconciling the accounts, the OP No.1 came to know about the mistake in calculation. Immediately the officials of OP No.1 requested the complainant to pay the balance payment of Rs.1.00 lac. Inspite of repeated requests the complainant failed to make the payment and came to collect the original documents for getting the vehicle registered in his name. OP No.1 wrote e-mail dated 18.04.2014 followed by letter dated 18.04.2014 sent through registered post on 23.04.2014. After receipt of email dated 18.04.2014 the complainant by twisting the facts sent a legal notice to OP No.1. It is further pleaded that the vehicle which was sold to the complainant on 26.03.2014 was of 2014 model and not on 2013. On merits, it is denied that Deepak Kapoor its Sales Head gave any assurance regarding replacement of the vehicle. Mr. Deepak Kapoor visited the residence of the complainant on 11.04.2014 about the outstanding amount. Thus, denying any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP No.2 in its separate written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that it is one of the leading car manufacturers in India. The relationship between OP No.2 and OP No.1 is on principal to principal basis. OP No.2 has nothing to do with the complaint. It has been unnecessary impleaded as a party in the complaint. The legal notice was also sent to the dealer alone by the complainant. The complainant has no case on the basis of stickers labeled on the vehicle on the writing inside out are revealing manufacturing year as 2013, as the dealer has clearly mentioned in the sale letter, the month and year of manufacturer of model as 2014 and not as 2013. On merits, it is has denied any deficiency in service on its part and sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-6.
5. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Anoop Gupta, its authorised signatory Ex.OP-1/1; affidavit of Mrs. Umesh Sarpal, Accounts Manager Ex.OP-1/2 and copies of the documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-24.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by them.
7. The sale and purchase of the vehicle in question is not disputed. The disputed question raised by the complainant is that instead of 2014 model, he has been sold 2013 model though he was assured sale of 2014 model of the vehicle in question at the time of its purchase. The complainant has raised the allegation by taking plea that stickers labeled on the vehicle on the writing inside out are revealing manufacturing year as 2013. However, no evidence on record has been produced by the complainant.
8. Still in order to resolve the controversy at the behest of the parties, this Forum has ordered joint inspection of the vehicle in question in the presence of the parties by a qualified technical expert. As per the inspection report conducted by Shri Deepak Kapoor and Jagdip Singh Virk in the presence of the parties and their counsel, the inspection was conducted by following due process and photograph. As per inspection report Ex.OP-1/12 the vehicle in question has been manufactured in the month of January, 2014 as per the details of location for chassis number and code for month and year of manufacture as per Rule 122 of C.M.R.V. As per code the last four digits represents the year and month of manufacturing of the vehicle, therefore, the V.I.N. number of the vehicle in question denotes that the vehicle has been manufactured in the month of January, 2014 and not 2013. The details of manufacture mentioned on the chassis determines the model of the vehicle and that very perfectly matches with the year of manufacturing 2014 model sold to the complainant. Joint inspection report duly conducted in the presence of the parties has been supported by the affidavit of the technical expert Shri Jagdeep Singh through his affidavit Ex.OP-1/3. There is no counter to such affidavit by the complainant. Thus, it reaches us to believe that the joint inspection report being correct and remained undisputed clearly shows that the vehicle in question is of 2014 model and not 2013 model.
9. Therefore, the complaint being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
April 22, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
