Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/5

Manish Sirhindi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh S P Singh Sidhu

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/5 of 5.1.2015

                                      Decided on:        3.6.2015

 

Manish Sirhindi son of Sh.Parshotam Kumar, resident of #140/4, Sidhu Colony, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1, Phase III A, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Managing Director.
2.  M/s Hira Automobiles Ltd.(Authorized Maruti Dealer) Corp. Office: Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                   …………….Ops

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:      Sh.S.P.Sidhu, Advocate

For Op No.2:                   Sh.Rakesh Garg, Advocate        

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a car make Maruti Ritz VDI bearing engine No.2428129  and chassis No.503054 for Rs.5,43,934/- from M/s Hira Automobiles Ltd. Patiala i.e. Op no.2 vide invoice No.VSL14001060 dated 26.9.2014. Besides the cost of the car, the Op had got the requisite amount on account of the registration of the vehicle, premium of the insurance, temporary registration number and other charges etc. deposited. The complainant had purchased the car under an exchange scheme, vide which the complainant had sold his old car make Honda City to Op no.2 for Rs.80,000/-.Certain other discounts were also provided by Op no.2 to the complainant. The Op provided the temporary number of certificate of registration i.e. PB-11-ZJ(T)3733 but Op no.2 failed to hand over the photo copy of the documents such as invoice, sale certificate and insurance cover note and assured to hand over the same at a later stage. The Op retained the original invoice and sale certificate for getting the certificate of registration prepared.
2. At the time of selling the car, Op no.2 had assured to get the certificate of registration  of the car prepared  and to hand over the same to the complainant. After a gap of 8-10 days, the complainant approached Op no.2 to collect the certificate of registration but the Op put the matter off. Ultimately, on 30.10.2014, the complainant had written a letter to the Op for providing him the certificate of registration and the duplicate bill but the Op handed over only the photo copy of the invoice  but failed to hand over the certificate of registration.
3. When the complainant requested the Op to hand over the original certificate of registration, the Op made a refusal and merely provided photo copies of the invoice, sale certificate and temporary certificate of registration, rather the Op had sent an e-mail dated 8.4.2014 asking the complainant to pay Rs.12,115/- more for getting the certificate of registration prepared but the complainant had already deposited the same with the same. The temporary certificate of registration had expired on 26.10.2014 and therefore, the complainant was unable to ply the vehicle, in the absence of certificate of registration, which resulted into the mental agony experienced by the complainant qua the financial loss. Accordingly the complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice on 14.11.2014 through his counsel with a request to hand over the certificate of registration to him and also to pay him the compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him but the Ops failed to respond the notice. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to hand over  the original RC of the vehicle, to pay him Rs.80,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.20,000/-towards the litigation expenses.
4. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2 only , who on appearance filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia , that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed ; that the complainant had no valid cause of action against the Op; that the complaint being false and vexatious , the same  is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs under Section 26 of the Act; that the complainant has miserably failed to show any deficiency of service on the part of the Op and that the complaint appears to be false and malicious . As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted by the Op that the complainant had purchased the car make Maruti Ritz VDI from the Op as per the particulars of the invoice given by the complainant for Rs.5,43,934/-. It is denied by the Op that it had got the requisite amount on account of the registration of the vehicle and insurance premium deposited from the complainant. It is admitted by the Op that the car was purchased by the complainant under the exchange scheme under which the complainant had sold his old car make Honda City to the Op for Rs.80,000/- and the complainant got the exchange bonus of Rs.25000/-. The complainant had to pay the price of the car at Rs.5,18,934/-. The complainant was also provided  the Gold Coin Bonanza under the scheme worth Rs.3000/- and the additional discount of Rs.10,940/-.Thus the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.4,49,994/-(Rs.5,43,934-80,000+3000+10,940= Rs.4,49,994/-).The complainant had made the payment of Rs.one lac only in lump sum against the said payment of Rs.4,49,954/- on 26.9.2014.An amount of Rs.3,49,294/- was due against the complainant as on 26.9.2014.
5. It is further the plea taken up by the Op that the cheque for Rs.4lacs dated 7.10.2014 issued by the bank in respect of the loan raised by the complainant was credited into the account of the Op on 9.10.2014. Thus, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.4lacs to the Op on 7.10.2014. The tax was enhanced by the State Govt. on 8.10.2014 vide notification dated 7.10.2014. The complainant never made the payment towards the registration of the vehicle to the Op. It is denied by the Op that it had assured the complainant that it will get the certificate of registration prepared within 15 days and the same will be delivered to him. In fact, the complainant had not deposited the amount towards the registration of the vehicle with the Op at any point of time.
6. It is further the plea taken up by the Op that after the adjustment of Rs.4lacs, a sum of Rs.50,006/- of the complainant was lying with the Op. The Op has shown the said excess amount of the complainant lying with the Op by deducting the amount of Rs.3,49,994/- payable by the  complainant to the Op out of the amount of Rs.4lacs , received by the Op through cheque from the bank but the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.21,596/- towards the premium of the insurance+Rs.300/- towards the temporary certificate of registration  and Rs.1110/- in respect of the accessories and after adjusting the said amount of Rs.23006/- out of the said amount of Rs.50006/-, a sum of Rs.27000/- of the complainant is lying with the Op. The complainant was obliged to pay a sum of Rs.29600/-towards the registration of the vehicle as on 7.10.2014 but only a sum of Rs.27000/- was lying with the Op. The amount of Rs.four lacs was credited into the account of the Op on 9.10.2014 but the State Govt. had enhanced the rate of tax on 8.10.2014 and therefore, as per the enhanced rate of tax, the complainant was obliged to pay Rs.39,400/- towards the registration of the vehicle but the complainant did not pay the same as per the enhanced  rate of tax.
7. The Op has denied any cause of action having accrued in favor of the complainant qua any deficiency of service on its part and after denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C12 and his counsel closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Jaswinder Singh Gill, Operation Head of the Op alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP5 and closed its evidence.
10. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
11. The Op has admitted the receipt of the following amounts from and on behalf of the complainant: (1) Rs.four lacs vide cheque dated 7.10.2014 from the Bank (2) Rs. One lac in cash from the complainant on 26.9.2014.The Op also admits the value of the old car Honda City sold by the complainant to the Op at Rs.80,000/-. Similarly, the Op admits the exchange bonus  ofRs.25000/- provided to the complainant. The Op also admits the value of the gift of the gold coin at Rs.3000/-.Similarly the op admits the additional discount of Rs.10940/- to have been provided by the Op to the complainant.
12. Similarly, the complainant has not raised any objection with regard to the charging of Rs.300/-towards temporary certificate of registration and Rs.1110/- towards the sale of the accessories to him.
13. Thus, taking into account the price of the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the Op vide invoice,Ex.C1, shown as Rs.5,43,934/- , the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,24,994(Rs.5,43,934-80,000/-+25000/-+3000+10940). As against the said amount payable by the complainant, he made the payment of Rs.4lacs + one lac. Thus, he paid Rs.75006/- in excess. Out of the said amount, the op was entitled to deduct Rs.300/-towards temporary RC + Rs.1110/-towards accessories i.e. Rs.1410/- thereby leaving the excess amount of the complainant with the op at Rs.73596/-.
14. Out of the said amount, the complainant got the policy of the insurance through the OP on payment of the premium of Rs.21596/- as would appear from the certificate of insurance Ex.C4, thereby leaving an amount of Rs.52000/- still in excess of the complainant with the Op.
15. There is a dispute between the parties as to when the Op received the demand draft of Rs.4lacs from State Bank of Patiala on behalf of the complainant. As per letter dated 1.10.2014,Ex.C5 written by State Bank of Patiala GDNS Branch, Patiala to op no.2 demand draft No.104124 dated 1.10.2014 was handed over to op no.2 on the said date and the said fact is said to have been acknowledged by the dealer of Op no.2 under his signatures as would appear from the endorsement made on Ex.C5..The Op has not rebutted the said evidence. In case, the Op had received the demand draft of Rs.four lacs from State Bank of Patiala, GDNS branch on behalf of the complainant on 1.10.2014 and it had already received the cash amount of Rs.one lac from the complainant on 26.9.2014 and  the Op had got the certificate of insurance ,Ex.C4 issued in the name of the complainant regarding the vehicle purchased by him on 26.9.2014, the Op had the excess amount of Rs.52000/- lying in excess with it on behalf of the complainant.
16. The Op has produced in evidence,Ex.OP4, account statement obtained from PNB in respect of the account of the op showing the encashment  into its account on 9.10.2014 regarding instrument No.104124, which apparently pertains to demand draft No.865886 as would appear from the certificate,Ex.C10 dated 19.3.2015, given by State Bank of Patiala GDNS branch, Patiala.
17. It was submitted by Sh.S.P.Singh Sidhu, the learned counsel for the complainant that in case the Op had received the demand draft No.104124 from State Bank of Patiala vide letter,Ex.C5 dated 1.10.2014, there was no lapse on the part of the complainant in getting the same encahsed by the Op. The op unnecessarily caused the delay in getting the same encashed. Had the same been got encashed, the Op would have got sufficient amount lying in excess with it on behalf of the complainant for getting the certificate of registration prepared from the concerned Motor Vehicle(Registering) Authority on 1.10.2014.The complainant was liable to pay motor vehicle tax @6% as per the notification No.3/2/2011-2T2/1475 dated 31^st Agust,2012 and 3.2.20112T2/83503/1 dated 8 August,2013  but on account of the partial modification of the said notification made by Govt. of Punjab, Department of  Transport vide notification no.3/2/2011-2T2/7 dated 7^th October,2014, ( copy Ex.OP5) the motor vehicle tax was enhanced to 8% to be levied on the actual price of the four wheeled personalized vehicle upto 20lac. The complainant could not be burdened for the enhancement of the motor vehicle tax. Had the Op applied for the certificate of registration either on 1^st October or at the most on 2nd October ,2014, the complainant would have been liable to pay the motor vehicle tax @6%.Now it is for the Op to explain as to why it could not get the certificate of registration issued  despite being possessed of the sufficient amount i.e.Rs.52000/- lying with it on behalf of the complainant.The Op had no reason to demand another amount of Rs.12,115/- for getting the RC prepared, a fact not denied by the Op.
18. It was submitted by Sh.Sidhu, that the complainant had to pay the motor vehicle tax on the price of the car, which is inclusive of the vat and surcharge i.e. Rs.4,72,820/- as shown in the invoice,Ex.C1 @6% at Rs.28369/- but the Op was having Rs.52000/- lying in excess with it on behalf of the complainant. It was still having Rs.23631/- lying in excess with it on behalf of the complainant.
19. On the other hand, Sh.Rakesh Garg, the learned counsel for the Op could not rebut the fact with regarding to the receipt of the draft of Rs.four lacs by the Op vide letter,Ex.C5 dated 1.10.2014 from State Bank of Patiala because there is no statement to have been made by Sh.Jaswinder Singh Gill, who has been authorized by the Op vide resolution dated 31.10.2014 to deposed on behalf of the Op, that demand draft no.104124 dated 1.10.2014 was not received by the Op vide letter,Ex.C5 dated 1.10.2014 from State Bank of Patiala GDNS  branch, Patiala. Sh.Garg, however, submitted that the price of the old car i.e. Rs.80,000/- also included the exchange value of Rs.25000/-, meaning thereby that the price of the old car was Rs.55000/- and by adding Rs.25000/-towards the exchange value, the same was treated as Rs.80,000/-. The said submission made by the learned counsel for the Op runs contrary to the plea taken up by the Op. Firstly the complainant has categorically stated in the complaint that he had sold his old car make Honda City to the Op for Rs.80,000/- and secondly the said fact is not controverted by the Op in the written version and rather the same is admitted in para no.2 of the written version. It is no where stated in the written version that the exchange bonus was included the price of the old car. Therefore, we do not find any reason to accept the said submission made by the learned counsel for the Op.
20. Sh.Garg, also could not point out any discrepancy in the calculations of the amount as discussed above by us and therefore, we are of the considered view that the lapse occurred on the part of the op in not having got the certificate of registration of the vehicle issued from the Motor Vehicle(Registering) Authority, within a reasonable time on receipt of the amount of Rs.one lac from the complainant on 26.9.2014 and Rs.four lacs from the bank on 1.10.2014 and therefore, the complainant cannot be burdened with the enhancement of the motor vehicle tax from 6% to 8% vide notification Ex.OP5 dated 7^th Octobedr,2014 and the burden in that regard has to be borne by the Op. We, accordingly taking into account the deficiency of service on the part of the op accept the complaint and direct the Op to get the certificate of registration of the vehicle prepared within seven days on receipt of the certified copy of the order and to refund the excess amount of Rs.23631/- lying with it with interest @9% per annum from 8.10.2014.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with cost assessed at Rs.5000/-.

Pronounced

Dated: 3.6.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President