Haryana

Kaithal

72/20

Gagan Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.B.N Gupta

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.72/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.02.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:01.09.2023.

Gagan Nath aged about 55 years S/o Darbari Lal R/o House No.107, near Talab Gram Nagal, Kheri Gulam Ali, Tehsil Siwan, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra through its Authorized Dealer Lekh Raj Auto Plaza Private Limited N.H.65, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
2. Shri Varun Mehta, Manager M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra through its Authorized Signatory Lekh Raj Auto Plaza Private Limited N.H.65, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
3. H.D.F.C. Bank Branch at Pehowa Chowk, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal through its Manager.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.   

Present:     Sh. B.N.Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. O.P.Gulati, Advocate for the OP.No.3.

                OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Gagan Nath-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that in the month of February, 2018 the complainant showed his willingness to purchase Model KUV NXT K5 T Model 2018 and asked the OPs No.1 & 2 its estimated cost of purchase with all emoluments whereby the OPs No.1 & 2 gave the rough estimate of Rs.6,65,149/- i.e. Rs.5,99,995/- as cost, Rs.28,064/- as insurance, Rs.33,590/- as RC charges, Rs.500/- as temporary number, Rs.3,000/- as incidental charges.  It is alleged that the complainant adjusted Rs.2,10,000/- towards the price of the old L.M.V. car SEDAN MAKE INDIA Nissan Motors India (owned by his son Shamsher Singh) and for the balance amount, he got the vehicle financed from OP No.3 on monthly installment of Rs.11,300/- per month for a period of four years starting from 07.02.2018.  After purchase of said vehicle, the OP No.1 assured that he shall deliver the original bill of the purchased car sanction from the higher authorities.  The complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 several times and ultimately, OPs No.1 & 2 gave the bill etc. of the purchased vehicle bearing invoice No.IINV18C000239 dt. 07.02.2018 showing the value of vehicle as Rs.5,30,378/-, insurance amount as Rs.17,332/- (assessed on the valuation of vehicle), Rs.26,500/- as RC charges and total amounting to Rs.5,74,210/- which related to the price of Model 2017 which showed the manufacturing date as September, 2017 as evident on RC of the vehicle.  It is further alleged that the OPs No.1 & 2 have charged Rs.6,65,149/- for Model 2018, whereas they have supplied the Old model of the year 2017, whose value was Rs.5,74,210/- and thus, grabbed the amount of Rs.90,939/- which the complainant is entitled to be reimbursed from the OPs No.1 & 2.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared before this Commission, whereas OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 11.02.2020 passed by this Commission.  OP No.3 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant is having salary account bearing No.50100206722042 with the OP No.3 and he availed Auto Loan of Rs.4,55,769/- vide loan account No.54780799 and car loan was repayable by the complainant in 48 monthly equal installments of Rs.11,300/- each.  As per statement of account, an amount of Rs.2,38,182.70/- plus interest and charges is still due towards the complainant upto 29.04.2020.  The aforesaid liability is only upto 29.04.2020 and it will be further enhanced by passage of time to higher side.  There is no privity of contract between OP No.3 and OPs No.1 & 2.  The answering OP has unnecessarily been dragged in the litigation.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C15 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that in the month of February, 2018 the complainant showed his willingness to purchase Model KUV NXT K5 T Model 2018 and asked the OPs No.1 & 2 its estimated cost of purchase with all emoluments whereby the OPs No.1 & 2 gave the rough estimate of Rs.6,65,149/- i.e. Rs.5,99,995/- as cost, Rs.28,064/- as insurance, Rs.33,590/- as RC charges, Rs.500/- as temporary number, Rs.3,000/- as incidental charges.  It is further argued that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question and adjusted the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- towards the price of the old L.M.V. car SEDAN MAKE INDIA Nissan Motors India (owned by his son Shamsher Singh) and for the balance amount, he got the vehicle financed from OP No.3 on monthly installment of Rs.11,300/- per month for a period of four years starting from 07.02.2018.  It is further argued that after purchase of said vehicle, the OP No.1 assured that he shall deliver the original bill of the purchased car sanction from the higher authorities.  The complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 several times and ultimately, OPs No.1 & 2 gave the bill etc. of the purchased vehicle bearing invoice No.IINV18C000239 dt. 07.02.2018 showing the value of vehicle as Rs.5,30,378/-, insurance amount as Rs.17,332/- (assessed on the valuation of vehicle), Rs.26,500/- as RC charges and total amounting to Rs.5,74,210/- which related to the price of Model 2017 which showed the manufacturing date as September, 2017 as evident on RC of the vehicle.  It is further argued that the OPs No.1 & 2 have charged Rs.6,65,149/- for Model 2018, whereas they have supplied the Old model of the year 2017, whose value was Rs.5,74,210/- and thus, grabbed the amount of Rs.90,939/- which the complainant is entitled to be reimbursed from the OPs No.1 & 2.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.3 has argued that the complainant is having salary account bearing No.50100206722042 with the OP No.3 and he availed Auto Loan of Rs.4,55,769/- vide loan account No.54780799 and car loan was repayable by the complainant in 48 monthly equal installments of Rs.11,300/- each.  It is further argued that as per statement of account, an amount of Rs.2,38,182.70/- plus interest and charges is still due towards the complainant upto 29.04.2020.  The aforesaid liability is only upto 29.04.2020 and it will be further enhanced by passage of time to higher side.  It is further argued that there is no privity of contract between OP No.3 and OPs No.1 & 2.  It is further argued that OP No.3 has unnecessarily been dragged in the litigation.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the Annexure-C10 that the estimate given by the OPs to the complainant for the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.6,65,149/- i.e. Rs.5,99,995/- as cost, Rs.28,064/- as insurance, Rs.33,590/- as RC charges, Rs.500/- as temporary number, Rs.3,000/- as incidental charges.  To meet out the price of vehicle in question, the complainant got adjusted Rs.2,10,000/- towards the price of the old L.M.V. car (SADEN), Nissan Motors India, as is clear from the copy of cheque as per Mark-A.  The said vehicle was in the name of his son namely Shamsher Singh, the copy of RC as per Annexure-C6 is placed on the file.  The balance amount of Rs.4,55,769/- was got financed from HDFC Bank, Kaithal as is clear from para No.10 mentioned in written statement of OP No.3.  The grievance of the complainant relates to OPs No.1 & 2 only as they issued invoice dt. 07.02.2018 showing the value of vehicle as Rs.5,30,378/- as is clear from Annexure-C1, insurance amount as Rs.17,332/- (assessed on the valuation of vehicle), Rs.26,500/- as RC charges (assessed on the valuation of vehicle) and total amounting to Rs.5,74,210/- which related to the price of Model 2017 and in this way, the OPs have obtained Rs.90,939/- extra from the complainant and prayed for refund of the same.  The complainant also made complaints to C.M.Window on 25.07.2018 as per Annexure C8 and Chief Minister, Haryana as per Annexure-C12, wherein the complainant has stated that he also made complaint bearing No.00132280401182218 dt. 03.07.2018 to the office of S.P.Kaithal but the police did not take any action against the OPs.  It is also clear from the statement of complainant as per Annexure-C3 that the OPs have grabbed the amount of Rs.89,349/- extra by playing fraud upon the complainant and he has prayed for taken action against the employees of OPs.   On the other hand, the OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear even single time in this court and opted to proceed against exparte.  Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the OPs No.1 & 2.  So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs No.1 & 2 to pay the amount of Rs.89,349/- to the complainant within 45 days from today, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The OPs No.1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted according against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismissed against OP No.3.   

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OPs No.1 & 2 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:01.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.