Haryana

Ambala

CC/409/2011

SAVNEET SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S OBEROI AUTO - Opp.Party(s)

P.K GOEL

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

        Complaint Case No. : 409 of 2011

                    Date of Institution    : 20.12.2011

                     Date of Decision      :  17.02.2017

 

Savneet Singh Sobti, H.No.9,Golden Park, Near Dayal Bagh, Gurudwara, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.         M/s Oberoi Automobiles (P) Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Official, Showroom at # 1, near Jail Bridge, Ram Nagar, Baldev Nagar Camp, Chandigarh Road, Ambala City.

 

2.         M/s General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Official having its registered office at Chandrapura Industrial Estate Halol-389351, District Panchamahals, Gujrat.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. P.K. Goel, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Jatinder Kumar, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 exparte.

 

ORDER.

                             

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant on 05.09.2011 purchased a card Model Optra 2.0 TCDi LS BS4 vide Chasis number MA6NFAEDBBH011805, Engine no.Z20S1439379K vide invoice no.R00072 dated 05.09.2011 from OP No.1 and as per complainant he was told  to pay Rs.8.50 lacs for the car and it was further assured by official of OpNo.1 that insurance will be free from the company and complainant then paid the said amount to OPNo.1  but the OPNo.1 issued invoice of amount of Rs.8,19,134/- and insurance charges of Rs.26237/- were deducted. It has been submitted that complainant had taken a loan against cost of car of Rs.8.50 lacs as told by OP No.1 which has resulted in lowering of mage of complainant before bank official as cost of car as per the bill amount to Rs.8,19,134/-. Even the value of car has been down from 8.50 lacs to 8,12,385/- as assessed by United  India Insurance  while covering the insurance of the car.  Besides this, complainant had to pay the insurance charges which were assured to be free and not included in Rs.8.50 lacs which is again wrong as the insurance amount was not included in the cost. Thus, both of the Ops have played fraud upon complainant and indulged in unfair trade practices. It has been submitted that the said car from the very first day of its purchase, suffers from manufacturing defect in it.  Firstly, the speedometer needle jumps but show half of actual speed which can cause not only an accident but also creates problem of challan under Motor Vehicle Act. Secondly, the anti-theft system is totally failed and Central Lock Alarm not working. The Op No.1 assured that due to anti-theft system nobody can steal the car as no other key can start the car and unlock the car which is also wrong as some other key can unlock the car. Moreover, the cars having facility of central locking system, creates alarm of beep but the same is missing in this car and thus there are chances of theft of the vehicle. It has been submitted that when complainant on 05.09.2011, came after taking delivery of the car, he found that these problem are being face by him. Then complainant immediately called upon Mr.Deepak,  Service Manager of OP who assured of rectification of the defects but the problems persisted time and again. So,  the complainant was served with a legal notice but of no avail.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed reply  raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint and as per version of complainant there were  only 2 minor defects in the vehicle. On merits, it has been submitted that  it was  well explained to the complainant that Logistic Price of the vehicle was Rs.8,55,371/-, Insurance Costs Rs.26237/- & Temp Number cost Rs.500/- and hence on road price of the vehicle in question  comes to Rs.8,82,108/- and  accessories of Rs.5028/- was provided to the complainant free of cost.  Hence, the complainant has been provided value of Rs.8,87,136/-.  As per the deal the OP has received a lump sum amount  of Rs.8,50 lacs and the booking amount of Rs.4000/- was refunded to the complainant. However, it has been submitted that insurance company is to be paid for the insurance of the vehicle. However, it has been submitted that the alarm feature of central locking system is not mandatory. Alarm feature is not mandatory as per MV Act Norms and the said feature or other features  differs from car to car, model to model  and company to company and one cannot be forced to make an additional feature to his car which has not been provided in the car in question.  As such, the Op has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

                        Op No.2 tendered their reply raising preliminary objections qua  non-maintainability of complaint. On merits, it has been submitted that the vehicle in question has been manufactured by them and OP No.1 is their dealer and they interact on principal to principal basis. The answering OP has further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure C-1 alongwith documents as Annexures C-2 to C-17 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, counsel for Op no.1 tendered affidavit Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexures R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence.  No evidence was tendered on behalf of OP No.2 and he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.03.2016.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. Admittedly the vehicle in question has been sold by Op No.1 to the complainant.  The complainant is having two grievances. First is that  complainant was assured by OP No.1 that cost of vehicle was settled at Rs.8,50,000/- and that  the said amount  will include the insurance premium.  He further contended that he had paid Rs.8,50,000/- as cost of car and also paid a sum of Rs.26237/- as insurance premium separately. The complainant further contended that Op No.1 issued the bill of Rs.8,19,134/-.  Instead of Rs.8.50 lacs whereas  the stand of OP No.1 is that  complainant had visited their premises for booking  of vehicle on  23.08.2011 and had paid booking amount of Rs.4,000/-.  OP No.1  has further contended that price of vehicle was Rs.8,55371/-, insurance cost  of Rs.26237/-, temporary number as Rs.500/-, so road price comes to Rs.8,82,108/- and accessories of Rs.5028/- was also provided to the complainant free of costs and  as per deal vehicle was  given to complainant at lump sum of Rs.8.50 lacs  against Rs.8,87,136/-.  It is further contended  that Rs.4000/- was also refunded to the complainant vide cheque no.523183. 

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, there is no evidence on record that complainant had separately paid the insurance premium of Rs.26237/- and cost of accessories as Rs.5028/- to OP No.1. As such, in the absence of evidence to the effect that the complainant had paid  for insurance premium and accessories, apart from Rs.8.50 lacs. So, in that  eventuality, it can easily be presumed that the said amount of Rs.8.50 lacs includes the cost of vehicle Rs.819114/- plus insurance premium of Rs.26237/- and accessories of worth Rs.5028/-. The grievance of complainant with regard to insurance of vehicle in question to the amount of Rs.812385/- instead of Rs.819134/- is also not plausible as the new vehicle is always insured after deducting 5% of the cost of the vehicle.   The insurance covernote reveals value of the vehicle as Rs.812385/-  has been rightly issued by OP.  The problems in the vehicle qua speedometer, anti-theft  system and central locking system is concerned, the OP called the complainant to their workshop for redressal of the said problems, if any but there is no any document  is on the file that the abovesaid features were provided by the OP in the car at the time of sale.  So these  grievances of  complainant against the OPs are not maintainable.

6.                     In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no force in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of  the order be sent to the parties concerned, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED:17.02.2017                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                                (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT

                       

                                                                                                            Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)  

                                                                                                              MEMBER