Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/688/2022

ANU GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S HONDA CAR LTD - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK MOHAN SHARMA

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/688/2022
Date of Institution	:	27.7.2022
Date of Decision	:	12/09/2023

 

Anu Garg wife of Sh. Sanjeev Garg resident of House No.1588, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   M/s Honda Car Ltd. having its Corporate Office at plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Knowledge park, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 201306 through its Managing Director.

2.   Lally Motors Private Limited G.T. Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar, Punjab through its Managing Director.

 

.  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Vivek Mohan Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
		Sh. Aditya Verma, Advocate for OP No.1.
		None for OP No.2.

Per SURJEET KAUR, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant booked Honda WR-V car with OP No.2  but when the complainant went to the OP No.2 for delivery of the vehicle he was  insisted by OP No.2 to take delivery of a lower variant car i.e. WR-V 1.5 MT (I-DTEC)  with assurances to fix back camera in the said lower model of the car and also assured refund of the excess amount. On the persistent of the OP No.2 the complainant took the delivery of the said vehicle as the demand draft was already paid to OP No.2 in advance. It is alleged that in the Month of  March 2022 when the husband of the complainant had taken the vehicle for service to Harmondy Honda Mohali it was informed by them to the  complainant that  warranty of said vehicle will expire on 29.3.2022 and as such asked to extend the same though the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 12.7.2019 and as such the warranty period was upto 11.7.2022. The complainant immediately contacted the OP No2  and after several requests they intimated the complainant that the date 30.3.2019  was mentioned due to clerical mistake but showed its inability to correct the same. Thereafter OP No.2 offered to extended the warranty for one year and get all the defect rectified free of cost and free service pack for 5 years in lieu of settlement. It is alleged that the OPs sold an old car to the complainant and issued hand written bill and did not issue any sale certificate showing month of manufacture of the vehicle in question to the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that it sells vehicles to the authorized dealers on no name basis for further sale to potential customers, such as the complainant.  The authorized dealer and the manufacturer operate on a principal to principal basis having no dealings whatsoever once the vehicle is provided to the OP No.2.  The answering OP does not provide after sales services to the end user and it for OP No.2 to undertake the necessary activities. It is averred that even otherwise no manufacturing defect has been highlighted in the present complaint which would warrant  impleading the answering OP.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 in its reply stated that the complainant has filed the false complaint against it with a intention to grab money and also to defame the reputation of the answering OP after three  years of purchase of the vehicle. It is alleged that even the complainant filed false police complaint against the  answering OP and the same was filed  by the police after thorough investigation. It is averred that in fact the answering OP purchased the vehicle in question from Rajasthan on 22.2.2019 and received on 24.2.2019 at Ludhiana Yard and thereafter sold the same to the complainant on 11.7.2019 and the said fact has been clearly mentioned in the registration certificate. It is alleged that the allegations of the complainant are false as the same has been filed to grab money from the answering OP. In fact the complainant continue to get her vehicle serviced since 2 August 2019 till 8.3.2022. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the   answering OP. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint has been dismissed.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The sole grouse of the complainant is that she was sold an old car by the OP No.2 at the price of a brand new car. As per complainant    she purchased the car from OP No.2 on 12.7.2019 by paying an amount of Rs.8,77,050/- for brand new car. However, later it came to her notice that the said car was an old one which was already sold on 30.3.2019 earlier also  as is apparent from Annexure C-4. Meaning thereby the OP No.2 sold the old car to the complainant at the cost of brand new car on 12.7.2019 which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8.  The stand taken by the OP No.1 the  manufacturer is that it has nothing to do with the sale of the car in question  as it sold a brand new car to the dealer i.e. the OP No.2. Hence, it cannot be held liable for the act and deeds of the OP No.2.  whereas the OP No.2   has denied the allegation of selling old car to the complainant at the price of a brand new car.
9. After going through the evidence on record it is abundantly clear from Annexure C-3 the tax invoice issued by OP No.2  that the complainant was sold the car in question for a sum of Rs.8,77,050/- by presenting the same as a brand new car. The price thus paid is of a brand new car. At the same when we go through the document Annexure C-4 which is a a screenshot of the page over the website of OP No.1 (the manufacturer)showing the details of the car in question which transpires that  in fact the car in question was already sold on 30.3.2019 i.e. prior 12.7.2019 to the date when the same was purchased by the complainant from OP No.2. Hence,  it is evident from record that the OP No.2 by misrepresentation sold an old car to the complainant at the price of a brand new car, which not only  caused emotional harassment to the complainant but she suffered financial loss due to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2. Instead of enjoying happiness with the family after purchasing the brand new car the complainant has been burdened with the present unnecessary litigation due to unethical practice of OPs.
10.  As far as the OP No.1 the manufacturer is concerned who is shouldering the entire burden on the OP No.2 is concerned, there is nothing on record which indicates that OP No.1 being the manufacturer of the car in question had  carried any investigation to bring out the truth of the allegations of the complainant and to curb the wrong practice done by the dealer who sells the car of its brand. Had the OP No.1 initiated any enquiry in the matter  the truth would have come out before it but it did nothing, hence, the OP No.1 is also equally deficient in rendering service.
11. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the certainly it is proved on record that the OPs had sold the car to the complainant via mis-representation  and using unfair means. The Consumer Protection Act has given right to the consumer in case of unfair trade practice and false representation  made in the course of selling goods. Accordingly we are of the considered opinion  that the act of OP No.2 to sell an old car to the complainant by misrepresentation  and later on not taking any action  against the unfair trade practice of OP No.2 by  OP No.1 proves deficiency on the part of both the OPs.
12. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. to refund the invoice price of Rs.8,77,050/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of purchase of the car till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.      This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.       The complainant shall return back the car in question to the OPs after receipt of invoice price thereof as ordered above. 
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off
16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
12/9/2023
mp