Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/57

Vaneet Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Raj Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amandeep Singh Minhas, Advocate

19 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  57 of 13.09.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :     19.07.2018

 

Vaneet Kumar, aged about 31 years son of Sh. Brij Pal, resident of House no.47-48, Block JJ, Nangal Township, P.S. & Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. M/s Raj Motors, Village & P.O. Chhoti Gandhon, NH-21, Rupnagar, District Rupnagar through its proprietor
2. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Private Ltd. Mahindra India & World Head Quarter, Mahindra Towers, G.M. Bhosle Marg, Worli Mumbai, Maharastra-400018.  

   

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. S.S.Rattan, Adv. counsel for complainant 

Sh. Udhey Verma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

Sh. K.S.Longia, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.54,857/- along with interest @ 18% per annum for the purchase of the said vehicle and further directed to refund the amount of Rs.6541/- for accessories; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service; to pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.   
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 28.04.2017 the O.P. No.1 being authorized distributor/dealer of O.P. No.2 has sold Mahindra XUV500 R FWD W6 HEO SLVR vehicle having registration No.PB-12-AC-4836. The dealing agent of O.P. namely Gurinder Bains approached with the complainant regarding the sale of the said vehicle. Thereafter, O.P. No.1 issued quotation dated 25.4.2017 amounting to Rs.13,98,867 and transferred the amount Rs.8,52,566/- on 26.4.2017 through RTGS from his bank account i.e. UCO Bank, Anandpur Sahib and also paid the amount of Rs.20,000/- cash in advance to the said agent of OP No.1 and he also issued the demand draft of Rs.5,00,000/- bearing draft No.766870 dated 27.4.2017 to OP No.1 and he also given his old Alto car bearing registration No.PB-74-9436 amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- to the O.P. No.1 and the amount ofRs.2,10,000/- adjusted in the insurance and registration of the said purchased vehicle and the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- adjusted in accessories and in this way, the complainant paid the amount of Rs.15,82,566/- to OP No.1 regarding the purchase of the vehicle including showroom price, registration charges and insurance. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.68,000/- to the OP No.1 and Rs.11,000/- adjusted from earlier payment to accessories of the said vehicle . but the OP No.1 not issued the receipt of Rs.72,459/- regarding the said payment. Thereafter, the complainant sent the legal notice to the O.Ps regarding the issue of sale letter regarding the said vehicle and after receiving the said notice, the OP No.1 sent the bill/sale letter. So there was difference of amount of Rs.54,857/- which clearly shows that the OP NO.1 in connivance with the said Gurinder Bains deducted the amount of Rs.54,857/- of the complainant wrongly and illegally. The OP No.1 has received an amount of Rs.79,000/- for the accessories and after that, they given the bill of Rs.72,459/- and deducted the amount of Rs.6541/- of the complainant wrongly and illegally. Hence, this complaint. 
3. On notice, O.P. No.1 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has no come to this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the replying O.P. in this uncalled for litigation just to harass it. On merits, it is stated that the vehicle in question was not sold vide invoice dated 28.4.2017. Infact the complainant has purchased Mahindra XUV 500 R FWD W6 HEO SLVR vehicle vide invoice dated 27.4.2017  having registration No.PB-12-AC-4836. The complainant came to the showroom of the answering O.P. and he intended to purchase Mahindra XUV 500 R FWD W6 HEO SLVR vehicle in exchange offer and then the sales manager of the vehicle of Rs.13,98,867/- and the complainant had agreed with this quotation. However, the complainant wanted to adjust the value of his old Alto K10 Car in exchange offer bearing registration No.PB-74-9436. The answering O.P. assessed the value of the Alto K10 car of Rs.1,60,000/- and also allowed exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- and in this way the total value of the said Alto K10 car in exchange offer with exchange bonus was assessed as Rs.1,75,000/-. The total price of the Mahindra XUV 500 R FWD W6 HEO SLVR is Rs.16,66,536/- and in this way the quotation was given to the complainant of Rs.16,66,536/- and the complainant agreed with the said quotation. At the time of delivery of the vehicle in question, the complainant had not agreed with provision of 2 Head Rest LED screen in the said purchased car, hence, the answering O.P. had refunded an amount of Rs.15,000/- in cash through voucher which was received by the father of the complainant Sh. Brij Pal. Rest of the allegation made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 
4. O.P. No.2 appears through counsel and filed written reply by taking preliminary objections; that there is no concern or any allegation alleged against the manufacturer; that OP No.2 is neither a necessary nor proper party in the case; that all the allegations are against OP No.1 and the impleadment of OP No.2 is unnecessary and is aimed to humiliate and harass the answering O.P. by forcing unnecessary litigation; that the complainant is not a consumer; that no cause of action has arisen in favour complainant against answering O.P.; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. On merits, it is stated that OP No.1 is authorized dealer of OP No.2. Liability of answering O.P. is limited to the terms and conditions of the warranty booklet, the sale of the vehicle is entirely the prerogative of the dealer. The dealer sells the vehicle and accepts the consideration amount of the vehicle and issues the receipts against the received amount under his signatures. The manufacturer has no role to play in the entire transaction of sale. Neither the booking is taken by the manufacturer nor money is accepted by the manufacturer and not the delivery to the customer is given by answering O.P. Although the defect was very minor regarding the lock related issue but in view of the customer centric approach the receipt in toto was replaced with new one. Thus, there is no deficiency in service neither there is any unfair trade practice. It is not a case of manufacturing defect but it is a dispute with regard to deduction of some amount and installation of LED by dealer. Rest of the allegation made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 
   5.  On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Ex.OP1/A along with document payment voucher Ex.OP1/B and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Anish Sharma, Authorized signatory of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Ex.OP2/A along with document Auto Sector Dealer Agreement Ex.OP2/B and closed the evidence.    
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. Complainant counsel Sh.S.S. Rattan, argued that O.P. No.1 being authorized distributor of OP No.2 has sold one XUV 500 R FWD W6 HEO SLVR vehicle on 28.04.2017 to the complainant having registration No.PB-12-AC-4836. When complainant approached to the O.P. No.1 then OP No.1 issued quotation dated 25.4.2017 of the vehicle amounting to Rs.13,98,867/-. For the payment of said amount, complainant through RTGS, cash and by way of demand draft paid the entire amount with adjustment of his old Alto K-10 Car bearing registration No.PB-74-9436 of Rs.2,20,000/-. Through the adjustment of old Alto K-10 Car O.P. adjusted Rs.2,10,000/- in the insurance as well as for the registration of the vehicle including accessories O.P. received Rs.1,82,566/-. When complainant gone through all the documents then came to know that O.P. charged excess price of the XUV 500 R FWD W6 HEO SLVR and sale letter speaks the price Rs.13,44,010/- only. So the difference of excess receipt amount to Rs.54,857/- The learned counsel by giving detail of invoice, payment and bill etc made prayer that O.Ps. charged excess amount to the quotation Rs.54,857/- to which the complainant is entitled with interest as well as costs, which amounts to deficiency in service.
8. Sh. Udhey Verma and Sh. K.S. Longia, counsel for O.Ps. No.1 & 2 argued that the sale/purchase of the vehicle is not denied, at the time of sale invoice was issued which was tentative and at the time of purchase, complainant deposited the price of the vehicle and also adjusted one old Alto K-10 Car bearing registration No.PB-74-9436 against a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-, if the entire amount is calculated with adjustment of old Alto K-10 Car Rs.1,60,000/- then there is no excess charge and no deficiency in service. By referring the pleadings as well as documentary evidence placed on file, prayed  to dismiss the complaint with cost.
9. Complainant is resident of District Rupnagar, whereas OP No.1 has also the agency situated at Rupnagar, whereas OP No.2 has the office at Worli Mumbai. So this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction and the sale/purchase is admitted by both the parties and dispute is qua the price/payment. So it is a consumer dispute.
10. Complainant has to prove deficiency in service. Complainant Vaneet Kumar tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.C1 which inconsonance to the complaint, beside affidavit placed on file Ex.C2, Performa invoice dated 14.4.2017 in which the tentative price is mentioned Rs.13,98,867/-. Ex.C3 is again Performa Invoice in the name of complainant and is without date in which price of the vehicle mentioned Rs.13,98,867/- + Insurance Rs.68,850/- + RC Charges Rs.1,04,360/- total amounting to Rs.15,72,077/-. Ex.C4 is the photocopy of receipt dated 28.4.2017 in the name of Vaneet Kumar and paid cash Rs.68,000/-. However, not mentioned the reason against which Rs.68,000/- charged. But in the complaint complainant itself recorded Rs.68,000/- paid towards accessories. Ex.C5 is photocopy of the UCO Bank and vide this statement payment was made. Ex.C6 is the photocopy of the RC of the vehicle in question. The complainant also placed on file photocopy of legal notice dated 16.5.2017 issued to the O.Ps. Beside this there is no document on the file. At the same time O.P. placed on file Ex.OP1/B receipt of Rs.15,000/- dated 8.5.2017 and Ex.OP2/B qua the dealership between OP1 & OP2.
11. After appreciating the arguments and the aspect of evidence adduced by both the parties there is no dispute qua the price of the vehicle XUV 500 R FWD W6 HEO SLVR having registration No.PB-12-AC-4836 because the performa invoice is dated 14.4.2017 and thereafter OP issued the calculation including the insurance as well as RC charges Rs.15,72,070/- that amount was supposed to be transferred into the account of OP. That was transferred vide Ex.C5. So there is no dispute qua the sale purchase/price of the vehicle. The only controversy is qua the price of the old Alto K-10 Car having registration No.PB-74-9436.
12.   Complainant in its pleadings has alleged that the price of the old Alto K-10 Car of Rs.2,20,000/- whereas OP No.1 in its reply has taken the plea that quotation was given of the new vehicle of Rs.13,98,867/-. Complainant wanted to adjust the value of his old Alto K-10 Car in exchange and its price was assessed Rs.1,60,000/-. Then also allowed Rs.15,000/- towards exchange bonus. In this way the old Alto K-10 Car was adjusted against Rs.1,75,000/-. Then OP has given detail in its reply para No.3 on merits. Complainant remain un-successful in rebutting the said calculation, only taken the plea that the old car was adjusted in exchange offer Rs.2,20,000/-. The difference alleged Rs.54,857/- That amount has been claimed by the complainant as relief.
13. The Forum while granting relief or holding deficiency in service has to relied upon the documentary evidence. Complainant alleged the price of the old car Rs.2,20,000/- whereas OP relied upon Rs.1,60,000/- + exchange bonus Rs.15000/- total Rs.1,75,000/-. Only the difference has claimed by the complainant towards excess charges but after thorough examination of the documentary evidence, the Forum has come to the conclusion that complainant remain fail in adducing adequate evidence or in proving the deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. So complaint is without merit.    

14.  In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.  

15.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated .17.07.2018                          PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER