Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/76/2019

Monika Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

MS Hoshiarpur Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Jagjeet Singh

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                    Complaint No.       CC/76/2019

                                                                   Date of Institution: 26.11.2019

                                                                   Date of Decision:   24.08.2022

 

Monika Rani aged 36 years W/o Jagjit Singh R/o #283, Sector-20, Block-C, Subhash Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Mb. No.8837603006 

                                                                                                                    …………....Complainant(s)

                                               

                                                     Versus

1. M/s Hoshiarpur Automobiles, Near Yes Bank, Sirhind Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, Now shifted at NH-1, Village AmbeyMajra, Sirhind side, Mandi Gobindgarh-147301

 

2. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, Phase 3A, IMT Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana 122051

       …………....Opposite Party(s)

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Ms.Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: Sh. Jagjeet Singh, Counsel for the complainant.

               Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Counsel for OP No.1

     OP No.2 ex parte

         

Order By

Pushvinder Singh, President

 

1.                   The present complaint has been filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.6,82,538/-(which includes Ex-showroom value of car i.e. Rs.5,33,603/-, RC, Insurance, hypothecation charges, Interest and foreclosure charges of car loan i.e. Rs.1,42,935/- and loan processing fee i.e. Rs.6000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. CC also seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental harassment.
2.                    The CC submitted that she is the resident of Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib and was in need of a car. CC alleged that she visited the premises of above said Hoshiarpur Automobiles(OP No.1) for her desired model of car and purchased a car Marka Maruti celerio VX1, colour white, Chassis No. MA3ETDE1S00658889, Engine No. K10BN8290808. CC alleged that the car in question was delivered to her on 01.11.2019 but OP No.1 did not issue/handed over any bill to her.
3.                  CC further alleged that before purchase of the said car, the CC clarified the fact from the OP No.1 that “Whether the car, which is being sold to her, shall be based on Emission Norms Applicable as per Bharat Stage-IV (BS-4) or Bharat Stage-VI (BS-6) ?", then the OP No.1 falsely replied and fully assured the CC that she will be delivered the car from their showroom, manufactured under BS-6 Emission Norms. CC had expressed her only firm opinion that she will purchase the vehicle only if BS-6 category vehicle will be delivered to her and also the same will be shown on documentation of the vehicle. After delivery of the said vehicle, CC asked for FORM-22 (Initial Certificate of Compliance with Pollution Standards, Safety Standards of Components Quality and Road -Worthiness) from the OP No.1 and got the same, wherein it was mentioned 'Bharat Stage IV at Sr. No.4 of FORM-22. When the CC asked the OP No.1 that OP No.1 has delivered BS-4 Emission Norma Applicable vehicle instead of BS-6, then initially the authorized persons of the OP No.1 gave lame excuses to the CC for their above said act and conduct. CC further submitted that she had got sanctioned the car loan from H.D.F.C. Bank and she must have to pay back such debt from her hard earned money. The market value of BS-4 vehicle will strongly reduce soon after April, 2020, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that no BS- IV vehicle shall be sold across the country from April 1, 2020 and the above said act and conduct of the O.Ps has clearly affected the CC financially and economically, as the market value of the said car will reduce soon in future. CC alleged that she is suffering a great mental, physical and economical harassment at the hands of OPs due to their above-mentioned act and conduct. The CC fell in the present litigation due to deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The CC has requested number of times to the OPs either to deliver her BS-6 Emission Norms based vehicle or to pay back the complete sale price of the vehicle along with other expenses, which have already been borne by the CC, for which she is legally entitled, but OPs did not accede to the request of the CC.
4.                 Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Adv, counsel for the OP No.1 appeared and filed reply/version. OP No.2 failed to turn up despite service and was proceeded against ex parte. OP No.1 stated that the present complaint is not maintainable and the present complaint does not fall in the category of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. OP No.1 further stated that CC and he husband visited the premises of OP No.1 and booked the car BS-4 norms on 09.10.2019 after going through the catalogue, pricelist, specifications and model etc of the said car. It was pre-booked by the CC as the CC and her husband wanted to get the vehicle self-financed. The vehicle was delivered to the CC on 01.11.2019 with all necessary documents such as Bill/Invoice etc. and RC of the vehicle was issued in the name of CC.  OP No.1 further stated that CC had also signed the necessary documents i.e. Delivery Slip/Satisfaction Note, declaration regarding purchase of vehicle, declaration regarding payment, undertaking dated 01.11.2019, Order Booking/Commitment Checklist dated 09.10.2019, Final Deal Slip dated 01.11.2019, Form 21/Sale Certificate.
5.                  OP No.1 stated that CC had not sought any such clarification from the OP No.1 as alleged. Moreover, during October 2019, there were no such vehicles manufactured under BS-6 Emission Norms and as such, the question of giving any such assurance by the OP No.1 to the CC as alleged, does not arise at all. The CC had gone through all the catalogues, price-list, specifications, model etc. CC and her husband were fully satisfied from the specifications of Celerio Car.
6.                 It is further submitted by OP No.1 that the CC made a false complaint before Maruti Suzuki Company and it was forwarded to the OP No.1 for doing the needful on 16.11.2019. After receipt of the email from the Company the OP No.1 sent an email to the CC on 16.11.2019 regarding refund and return of the vehicle and requested the CC to supply the relevant documents along with vehicle to the OP No.1 i.e. the original invoice, original insurance policy, cancellation request form to be filled at the time of handover the vehicle and vehicle service book. The CC was also requested to initiate the process of loan cancellation on priority because the timeline to cancel the loan was only one month once it was approved. But neither reply was given to the said email nor the CC and her husband made any visit to the premises of OP No.1. On 19.11.2019 another email-cum-reminder was sent to the CC by informing that the deadline for loan cancellation is 25.11.2019 and CC should confirm the loan cancellation process so that the payment can be refunded timely. But CC and her husband failed to do the needful. On 28.11.2019 another email was sent to the CC through which they were again requested to do needful but they failed to do the same. Further OP No.1 submitted that the audio CD produced by the CC is created and forged. OP No.1 denied all other allegations and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
7.                   CC in his evidence has furnished his affidavit in support of the complaint reiterating the facts contained in the complaint as Ex.C-1/A and he also produced the copy of Form-22 as Ex.C-2, copy of Loan Repayment Schedule as Ex-C-3,  Audio CD as Ex.C-4, copy of online estimate of market value of the secondhand car as Ex.C-5. On the other hand, OPs furnished his affidavit as Ex.OP-1/A and produced the copy of Delivery Slip/Satisfaction note as Ex.OP-1, copies of Declarations of CC as Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3, copy of Undertaking as Ex.OP-4, copy of Order Booking/Commitment checklist as Ex.OP-5, copy of Final Deal Slip as Ex.OP-6, copy of Sale Certificate as Ex.OP-7, copy of Recipient Invoice as Ex.OP-8, copies of the emails dated 16.11.2019, 19.11.2019 and 28.11.2019 respectively as Ex.OP-9, Ex. OP-10 and Ex.OP-11, copies of payment receipts as Ex.OP-12 to Ex.OP-15, copy of Tax Invoice-cum-Policy Schedule as Ex.OP-16, copy of payment receipt as Ex.OP-17, copy of email dated 27.11.2019 as Ex.OP-18, copy of Declaration of CC as Ex.OP-19, copy of Vehicle Registration Process and Undertaking as Ex.OP-20, copy of RC as Ex.OP-21.
8.                    We have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the file carefully.
9.                    CC has filed this complaint with the allegations that he purchased a car Marka Maruti celerio VX1, colour white, Chassis No. MA3ETDE1S00658889, Engine No. K10BN8290808 from the OP No.1 and it was claimed by the OP No.1 that the said car was based upon the Norms of the Bharat Stage-6(BS-6). In fact the said car was based upon the Norms of BS-4. Thereafter, CC gave his objection to the OP No.1 and claimed his money back. By way of reply/version the OP No.1 has denied the allegation of CC but in the evidence it has come on record that in the documents of car i.e. invoice Form-22 etc. the Emission Norms applicable was mentioned as BS-4. So, undisputedly the car which was delivered to the CC was based upon BS-4 Emission Norms. In the evidence it is further came on the file that a complaint was made by the CC to OP No.1 and on the basis of the said complaint the OP No.1 agreed to refund the price of the said car and an offer was made by the OP No.1 to the CC on 16.11.2019 through email to get his loan cancelled which was taken by CC to purchase this car from HDFC Bank. A copy of email dated 16.11.2019 is Ex.OP-9 on the file and it was conveyed by the OP No.1 that they have initiated the process to cancel the sale of car and CC was directed to confirm the loan cancellation as the loan was obtained by the CC herself. The deadline for loan cancellation was conveyed till 25.11.2019. But the CC failed to give any reply of this email and thereafter another message by way of email dated 27.11.2019 was sent to the CC and requested to provide documents of car i.e. Original Invoice, Original Insurance, Vehicle Service Book And Cancellation Request Form to be filled at the time of handing over the vehicle. There is nothing on the file to show that any step was taken by the CC to get the loan cancelled within prescribed period. Thereafter, another message was sent to CC by way of email dated 28.11.2019 making the same request, but CC again remained failed to take any step. The CC was using the car and even still using the said car since the date of its purchase i.e. month of October, 2019. The vehicle was duly registered with the Registering Authority and was not debarred from driving and as such the CC did not suffer any personal loss and even otherwise when a complaint was made by CC for refund the amount of the said car, OP No.1 gracefully accepted the request of CC and offered to receive back the car and they were ready to return the price of car. The CC was requested to get the loan cancelled but CC failed to get the loan cancelled within prescribed period. As such, the OP No.1 was not in a position to cancel the sale of the said car.
10.                   The learned counsel for the CC forcefully contended that the OP No.1 gave a message by way of email dated 28.11.2019 that the loan should be cancelled before 25.11.2019. So, OP No.1 gave this offer by way of email dated 28.11.2019 after 3 days of the last date given for cancellation of loan. But we find that this contention raised by learned counsel for the CC is not appreciable because there is an email attached on the file as Ex.OP-9 which was already sent to the CC on 16.11.2019 and in the said email also the deadline for loan cancellation was mentioned as 25.11.2019. Moreover, another reminder by way of email dated 19.11.2019 was also sent to the CC which is attached as Ex.OP-10. But CC failed to take any step.
11.                In view of our aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
12.  

24.08.2022                                                                    (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                                     President

 

    (Manjit Singh Bhinder)

                                                                                                     Member

               

                                                                            (Shivani Bhargava)

   Member