Delhi

North East

CC/285/2017

Ms. Sarneet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Himgiri Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 285/17

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mrs. Sarneet Kaur W/o Shri Mandeep Anand R/o:- R-29C, Block-R Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Himgiri Auto India Pvt. Ltd. A-9/1 Jhilmil Industrial Area Near Dilshad Garden Metro Station Delhi-110095   Hyundai Motors India Ltd. 2nd, 5th & 6th Floor, Corporate Building (Baani Building) Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre Jasola, New Delhi-110025	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

12.09.2017 06.06.2022 06.07.2022

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant visited the showroom of Opposite Party No. 1 for purchasing a new car namely Hyundai I-10, colour-white, variant Sportz. It is alleged that Sales Representative of Opposite Party No. 1 told her that Opposite Party No. 1 was having a brand new and unused car 2016 manufactured make Hundai I-10, colour white, variant sportz. It is alleged that the representative of Opposite Party No. 1 offered to sell the said car on discounted price of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The actual on road price of the said car was Rs. 5,35,549/-. It is alleged that on the assurance of Opposite Party No. 1, Complainant agreed to buy the said car and paid booking amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 01.03.2017.
2.  Complainant had taken the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from State Bank of India and balance of Rs. 52,269/- was paid on down payment to Opposite Party No. 1 on 01.03.2017, 18.03.2017 & 19.03.2017. The Complainant had taken the delivery of the said car on 19.03.2017. Complainant was allotted the registration number i.e. DL 5CN 7830 on 24.03.2017. It is alleged that Complainant went for affixing the number plates when the vendor removed the temporary number plates, there were already 6 screw impression on the number plate fixing place. It is alleged that the front bumper colour was different from the rest of the car, bumper was not properly fitted, front wheel screw was also rusted and chrome plating had also vanished from the car key. Complainant immediately informed Sales Representatives of Opposite Party No. 1.  Complainant had sent an e-mail to General Manager sales and Sales Representatives of the Opposite Party No. 1. On 02.04.2017 Complainant received a call from General Manager of Opposite Party No. 1 for inspection of the said car. The car was inspected by Mr. Sunil (General Manager of the Opposite Party No. 2) and Mr. Muin (Sales Representative of Opposite Party No. 1). It is alleged that during the inspection Complainant showed all the parts which were either rusted or repaired. When Complainant opened the car bonnet in front of them a few nuts were missing. It is alleged that Opposite Parties offered her to do the needful, but Complainant refused for the same. Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Parties on 09.05.2017 and Opposite Party No. 1 replied the said legal notice on 03.07.2017.
3. Complainant has prayed for issue direction to Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs. 4,52,269/- as amount paid by the Complainant or give direction to the respondent to replace the damaged vehicle with a new one.
4. Complainant has filed copy of invoice, copy of receipt of booking amount, copy of loan document, copy of photo of the screw marks, copy of photo of bumper & rusted screws, copies of e-mail sent, copy of legal notice dated 09.05.2017 and copy of legal notice reply dated 03.07.2017

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

5. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 that complaint against the Opposite Party No. 1 is not maintainable on the ground that the Complainant has failed to show any fault or negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1. It is alleged that Complainant has not placed true facts before this Forum and filed false complaint against the Opposite Party No. 1. It is stated that Complainant had purchased the vehicle in good condition and there was no fault in the vehicle. It is alleged that on the basis of the Complainant’s need, the Opposite Party No. 1 offered to sell an unused brand new car. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 that Complainant was informed that the  ‘On Road Price’ of the said vehicle was Rs. 5,37,318/- and the said car was offered her for a sum of Rs. 4,52,269/- after discount.  It is submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the Complainant completely inspected the vehicle and verified every detail of the vehicle before taking the delivery on 19.03.2017 and Complainant signed an inspection form. Opposite Party No. 1 denied the allegation made by the Complainant and stated that Opposite Party No. 1 co-operated the Complainant and gave the proposal to do the needful to the satisfaction of the Complainant. It is alleged that Complainant refused the said offer of Opposite Party No. 1. It is alleged by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the Complainant has concealed the true and correct facts from this Forum. Hence, the present complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party No. 1 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

6. The Opposite party No. 2 contested the case and filed written statements. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No. 2 that Opposite Party No. 2 operates with all its dealers on a principal-to-principal basis and errors/omission/representations, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. It is submitted by the Opposite Party No. 2 that the cars are purchased by the Opposite Party No. 1 from the Opposite Party No. 2 against payment and thereafter, the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 2 that “title of the Hyundai vehicle” passes on to the concerned dealer, the moment it is put on a common carrier. It is alleged that allegations made in the complaint are against the Opposite Party No. 1 and the Opposite Party No. 2 has no role in retail sales or services of the vehicle.
7. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objections raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

8. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

9. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Rajender Kumar Tomar, Manager (HR) M/s Himgiri Auto India Pvt. Ltd., A-9/1, G.T. Road, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi-110095.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 2

10.  In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Sukomal, Assistant Manager, Legal & Secretarial, having office at 2^nd & 6^th Floor, Corporate One (Bani Building), Plot No. 2, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi.

Arguments & Conclusion

11.  We have heard the Learned Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments submitted by the parties.
12.  From the record it is revealed that the following facts are admitted.

1. The Complainant purchased one car make Hyundai I-10 from Opposite Party No. 1. The said car was manufactured in the year 2016. The Complainant purchased the said car from Opposite Party No. 1 in the month of March 2017. At that time on road price of the said car was Rs. 5, 37,318/-. The Complainant purchased the said car on a discounted price of Rs. 4,52,269/-.
2. At the time of purchasing the said car the Complainant was very well aware that the car which she was going to purchase was manufactured in the year 2016 and the Opposite Party No. 1 showed the said car to the Complainant on a discounted price as the car had been manufactured in the year 2016.

13.  The case of the Complainant is that after purchasing the car when she went for affixation of the number plate it was found that there was some rust at the place where the number plates were to be affixed. As per the version of the Complainant prior to this there must have been some temporary number plates affixed on the said car and for this reason there was rust on the place where the number plates to be affixed. It is also her case that the colour of the front bumper of the car differed from the colour of the car. It is also her case that keys of the said car were also looked like old ones.
14. It is also an admitted fact that when the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 1 and raised objection regarding the above mentioned defects of the car, then inspection of the car was carried out by the experts of the Opposite Party No. 1. It is the case of the both parties that the Opposite Party No. 1 agreed to do the needful rectification in the said car. In the present case, the Opposite Party No. 1 has not produced the said inspection report. Had the said inspection report been produced on record, it must have thrown some light regarding the details of damages and their age. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that it had offered to do the needful work in the car of the Complainant this also shows that there were some defects in the said car. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the car showed to the Complainant was a new one and unused. As there were damages in the body of the car for example rust in the space where the number plates were to be affixed. It is also proved that the colour of front bumper was different from the rest colour of the body of car. This means that the front bumper was damaged either in driving or otherwise. This fact was concealed by the Opposite Party No. 1 at the time of selling the car to Complainant. Rather, Complainant was assured that it was unused and new car, whereas it was not so. It is also the case of the Complainant that some bolts were also missing from the engine of the car. All these facts shows that car was not unused as alleged by the Opposite Party No. 1.
15.  In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is ordered that Opposite Party No. 1 shall pay Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) to the Complainant on account of damages, mental pain and agony. The Opposite Party No. 1 will also pay Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to the Complainant as litigation charges. In total the Opposite Party No. 1 shall pay Rs. 55,000/- (rupees fifty five thousand only) to the Complainant. The said amount shall be payable along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till the recovery of the said amount.
16.  Announced on 06.07.2022.
16. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
16. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President