JUDGMENT

                                                             3.3.2010

Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         This appeal by complainant  is directed against the  order dated 16.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh  whereby   his  complaint bearing  No.475 of 2007  was dismissed. 

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

            The complainant who is a practicing advocate, in order to purchase Maruti Car (AC) from OP NO.3 collected quotations enabling him to raise the loan from a nationalized bank.  As per the quotations provided to him, the price of Maruti 800-AC Metalic was Rs.2,18,909/- whereas the price of Maruti 800-AC Non-Metalic was Rs.2,16,421/-.  It was alleged   that at the time of issuance of the said quotations, OP-3 assured to give concession of Rs.15,150/- and   Rs.2500/- towards accessories of the car. OP-3 also agreed to give rebate of corporate to the tune of Rs.2400/- as the son of the complainant was working in a Nationalized Bank. On receipt of the said quotations, the complainant approached the Corporation Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh and submitted the relevant documents and on the basis of the said quotations, loan of Rs.2,18,909/- was sanctioned and released to OP-1 vide D.D. No.556948 dated 13.12.06. The said amount was acknowledged by OP-1 vide receipt dated 14.12.2006, whose copy is Annexure C-6 and delivered the car to the complainant. Temporary  registration No.CH-23-5879 of the car along with Form No.21 was issued in favour of the complainant to enable him to get the vehicle registered with the registering  authority. OP-3 informed the complainant that other documents would be delivered to him later on, as the sale of car to the complainant was to be confirmed by the head office of OP NO.3. The complainant  after collecting the said documents   came to know that OP-3 had played a fraud upon him clearly showing that the price of the car delivered and sold to the complainant was  Rs.2,07,414/- including the VAT whereas a sum of Rs.2,18,909/- was received from him. According to the complainant, he had raised loan for the purchase of the car from the Corporation Bank, Chandigarh showing the price of the car as Rs.2,18,909/- on the basis of the quotations  and the Bank acting upon these quotations and sanctioned  the  loan of Rs.1,90,000/- treating the cost of the car being Rs.2,18,909/-. It was further alleged that  OP-3 was required to pay concession of Rs.15,500/- + Rs.2400/- + Rs.2500/- as promised and this amount was required to be deducted from the sale consideration of Rs.2,07,714/- whereas   OPs had charged a sum of Rs.21,866/- more than the actual price of the car as OP NO.3 was to give concession of Rs.15,150/- and concession of corporate and accessories of Rs.5000/-. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking the difference of the cost of car, damages and litigation expenses etc. 

4.         On the other hand, the case of OP No.3 before the District forum was that  the complainant had approached OP NO.3 in the month of November,2006 and he vide commitment check list  agreed to the promotional discount to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and signed the said check list and it was specifically told to him that as per the provisions of Value Added Tax Act, the discounts given to him would be deducted and invoice shall be issued after deducting the discounts from the quoted value of the car.   According to OP-3, the discount of Rs.15,150/- was never part of the scheme at the time the complainant  had  purchased the vehicle and  as per the discount chart issued by the Maruti Udyog Limited, the discount  available on the car was Rs.10000/- for the period 8.12.06 to 31.12.06. The copies of the e-mail along with detailed chart received in respect of the discount offer for the periods 01.12.06 to 07.12.06 and 08.12.06 to 31.12.06 are Annexure R-3/5 and R-3/6.  According to OP-3, the complainant was given discount of Rs.10,000/- which he did not even dispute even at the time of taking the delivery of the vehicle. OP NO.3 by giving detail of the package received by the complainant asserted that the ex-showroom price of Maruti 800 Ac was Rs.2,18,909/- out of which Rs.10,000/- on account of promotion discount  plus Rs.1495/- on account of 3rd year warranty were given  and invoice was issued for Rs.2,07,414/- . It was pleaded that   there was no mis-representation of facts and the invoice was absolutely correct.

5.          OPs No.1 and 2, however in their reply before the District Forum asserted that the complainant was not a consumer qua them as he did not purchase the car from them, nor paid the sale consideration to them. So, it was pleaded that the complaint qua them be dismissed as  there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part. 

6.          OP-4 in its reply pleaded  that as per the invoice, the price of the car was Rs.2,07,414/-,so after deducting 5%, it was insured for Rs.1,97,043/-. The insurance for this price was perfectly valid and in accordance with law. According to OP-4, 5% deduction was to be made if the vehicle was less than 6 months old and as such the   deduction was  rightly made as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was pleaded that the answering OP was not at all related to any dispute in the cost of the car, discount or any other related dispute pertaining to the car in question and as such prayed that the complaint qua it was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 

 7.          The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the  evidence  and hearing   learned counsel for the  parties  came to the conclusion that the invoice price of the car had been rightly mentioned as Rs.2,07,414/- and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Still dissatisfied, complainant  has come up in   this appeal. 

8.            We have heard learned counsel for the  parties and gone through the file carefully.  The main point of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant/complainant is that as per invoice  the cost of the car in question was Rs.2,07,414/-  so concession and gift cheque was required to be given on the same but infact the OPs have given the benefit after getting the value of the said benefits/gift cheque from the complainant by receiving the total cost of Rs.2,18,909/-. According to complainant the price of Rs.2,07,414/- was inclusive of VAT so as such nothing was to be charged more so far the price of car in question was concerned.   However, this point of arguments has been repelled by the learned counsel for OPs.

9.              We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find no force in the contention of learned counsel for appellant inasmuch-as  according to quotation dated 23.11.2006 annexure C-2 the  Ex-showroom price of the Maruti 800 (AC) car is mentioned to be Rs.2,18,909/-  and there is nothing mentioned about the rebate and other concession.  Further in the annexure C-3 the ex-showroom price of the car is mentioned to be Rs.2,18,909/-. Annexure R-3/5 is the e-mail dated 2.1.2007 wherein it is recited that from 1st to 7th December there was ‘consumer offer’ of gift cheque worth Rs.15151/- and from 8th to 31st December,2006 the consumer offer was of gift cheque worth Rs.10,000/- on M800 car. Admittedly in this case as per annexure R-3/4 a package of Rs.10,000/- as agreed upon by the parties was given      to the complainant  as per detail given in para-8 of the impugned order, which reads as under :

                  Details of Package received by complainant :-

            The details of billing are as under:-

10.     Thus,  the amount of package was deducted from the ex-showroom price of Rs.2,18,909/-  and as such invoice was issued for sale price of Rs.2,07,414/-  by giving  promotional discount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1495/-  on account of 3rd year warranty.  Moreover, no loss from any angle is proved to have been caused to the complainant by OPs. Whatever amount the complainant had paid that has been duly explained by OPs while giving concession which was available during the period 8th December to 31st December,2006 when the complainant had deposited the amount on 14.12.2006 and took delivery of the car on 15.12.2006.   

11.        In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find no illegality in   the impugned order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the District Forum which  is  well reasoned and  justified in the given facts and  circumstances and we uphold the same  . Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby  dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.         

JUDGMENT

                                                             3.3.2010

Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         This appeal by complainant  is directed against the  order dated 16.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh  whereby   his  complaint bearing  No.475 of 2007  was dismissed. 

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

            The complainant who is a practicing advocate, in order to purchase Maruti Car (AC) from OP NO.3 collected quotations enabling him to raise the loan from a nationalized bank.  As per the quotations provided to him, the price of Maruti 800-AC Metalic was Rs.2,18,909/- whereas the price of Maruti 800-AC Non-Metalic was Rs.2,16,421/-.  It was alleged   that at the time of issuance of the said quotations, OP-3 assured to give concession of Rs.15,150/- and   Rs.2500/- towards accessories of the car. OP-3 also agreed to give rebate of corporate to the tune of Rs.2400/- as the son of the complainant was working in a Nationalized Bank. On receipt of the said quotations, the complainant approached the Corporation Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh and submitted the relevant documents and on the basis of the said quotations, loan of Rs.2,18,909/- was sanctioned and released to OP-1 vide D.D. No.556948 dated 13.12.06. The said amount was acknowledged by OP-1 vide receipt dated 14.12.2006, whose copy is Annexure C-6 and delivered the car to the complainant. Temporary  registration No.CH-23-5879 of the car along with Form No.21 was issued in favour of the complainant to enable him to get the vehicle registered with the registering  authority. OP-3 informed the complainant that other documents would be delivered to him later on, as the sale of car to the complainant was to be confirmed by the head office of OP NO.3. The complainant  after collecting the said documents   came to know that OP-3 had played a fraud upon him clearly showing that the price of the car delivered and sold to the complainant was  Rs.2,07,414/- including the VAT whereas a sum of Rs.2,18,909/- was received from him. According to the complainant, he had raised loan for the purchase of the car from the Corporation Bank, Chandigarh showing the price of the car as Rs.2,18,909/- on the basis of the quotations  and the Bank acting upon these quotations and sanctioned  the  loan of Rs.1,90,000/- treating the cost of the car being Rs.2,18,909/-. It was further alleged that  OP-3 was required to pay concession of Rs.15,500/- + Rs.2400/- + Rs.2500/- as promised and this amount was required to be deducted from the sale consideration of Rs.2,07,714/- whereas   OPs had charged a sum of Rs.21,866/- more than the actual price of the car as OP NO.3 was to give concession of Rs.15,150/- and concession of corporate and accessories of Rs.5000/-. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking the difference of the cost of car, damages and litigation expenses etc. 

4.         On the other hand, the case of OP No.3 before the District forum was that  the complainant had approached OP NO.3 in the month of November,2006 and he vide commitment check list  agreed to the promotional discount to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and signed the said check list and it was specifically told to him that as per the provisions of Value Added Tax Act, the discounts given to him would be deducted and invoice shall be issued after deducting the discounts from the quoted value of the car.   According to OP-3, the discount of Rs.15,150/- was never part of the scheme at the time the complainant  had  purchased the vehicle and  as per the discount chart issued by the Maruti Udyog Limited, the discount  available on the car was Rs.10000/- for the period 8.12.06 to 31.12.06. The copies of the e-mail along with detailed chart received in respect of the discount offer for the periods 01.12.06 to 07.12.06 and 08.12.06 to 31.12.06 are Annexure R-3/5 and R-3/6.  According to OP-3, the complainant was given discount of Rs.10,000/- which he did not even dispute even at the time of taking the delivery of the vehicle. OP NO.3 by giving detail of the package received by the complainant asserted that the ex-showroom price of Maruti 800 Ac was Rs.2,18,909/- out of which Rs.10,000/- on account of promotion discount  plus Rs.1495/- on account of 3rd year warranty were given  and invoice was issued for Rs.2,07,414/- . It was pleaded that   there was no mis-representation of facts and the invoice was absolutely correct.

5.          OPs No.1 and 2, however in their reply before the District Forum asserted that the complainant was not a consumer qua them as he did not purchase the car from them, nor paid the sale consideration to them. So, it was pleaded that the complaint qua them be dismissed as  there was no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part. 

6.          OP-4 in its reply pleaded  that as per the invoice, the price of the car was Rs.2,07,414/-,so after deducting 5%, it was insured for Rs.1,97,043/-. The insurance for this price was perfectly valid and in accordance with law. According to OP-4, 5% deduction was to be made if the vehicle was less than 6 months old and as such the   deduction was  rightly made as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was pleaded that the answering OP was not at all related to any dispute in the cost of the car, discount or any other related dispute pertaining to the car in question and as such prayed that the complaint qua it was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 

 7.          The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the  evidence  and hearing   learned counsel for the  parties  came to the conclusion that the invoice price of the car had been rightly mentioned as Rs.2,07,414/- and there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Still dissatisfied, complainant  has come up in   this appeal. 

8.            We have heard learned counsel for the  parties and gone through the file carefully.  The main point of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant/complainant is that as per invoice  the cost of the car in question was Rs.2,07,414/-  so concession and gift cheque was required to be given on the same but infact the OPs have given the benefit after getting the value of the said benefits/gift cheque from the complainant by receiving the total cost of Rs.2,18,909/-. According to complainant the price of Rs.2,07,414/- was inclusive of VAT so as such nothing was to be charged more so far the price of car in question was concerned.   However, this point of arguments has been repelled by the learned counsel for OPs.

9.              We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find no force in the contention of learned counsel for appellant inasmuch-as  according to quotation dated 23.11.2006 annexure C-2 the  Ex-showroom price of the Maruti 800 (AC) car is mentioned to be Rs.2,18,909/-  and there is nothing mentioned about the rebate and other concession.  Further in the annexure C-3 the ex-showroom price of the car is mentioned to be Rs.2,18,909/-. Annexure R-3/5 is the e-mail dated 2.1.2007 wherein it is recited that from 1st to 7th December there was ‘consumer offer’ of gift cheque worth Rs.15151/- and from 8th to 31st December,2006 the consumer offer was of gift cheque worth Rs.10,000/- on M800 car. Admittedly in this case as per annexure R-3/4 a package of Rs.10,000/- as agreed upon by the parties was given      to the complainant  as per detail given in para-8 of the impugned order, which reads as under :

                  Details of Package received by complainant :-

            The details of billing are as under:-

10.     Thus,  the amount of package was deducted from the ex-showroom price of Rs.2,18,909/-  and as such invoice was issued for sale price of Rs.2,07,414/-  by giving  promotional discount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1495/-  on account of 3rd year warranty.  Moreover, no loss from any angle is proved to have been caused to the complainant by OPs. Whatever amount the complainant had paid that has been duly explained by OPs while giving concession which was available during the period 8th December to 31st December,2006 when the complainant had deposited the amount on 14.12.2006 and took delivery of the car on 15.12.2006.   

11.        In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find no illegality in   the impugned order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the District Forum which  is  well reasoned and  justified in the given facts and  circumstances and we uphold the same  . Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby  dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.