Haryana

Ambala

CC/281/2013

KULBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TOYOTA GLOBE AOTUMOBILE PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.Danipur

28 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 281 of 2013

Date of Institution: 30.10.2013

Date of Decision: 28.06.2017

 

Kulbir Singh Lathwal, age 45 years, S/o Sh. Jile Singh Lathwal, R/o House No. C-7, Staff Colony, Government Polytechnic College, Ambala City.

                                                                                         ...................Complainant

VERSUS

M/s Toyota Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Village Saddopur, Opposite Springfield Public School, Ambala Chandigarh Highway Road, Ambala City through its Manager.

                                                                                ...................Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:    SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

        SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:    Sh. D.S. Danipur, Adv. for Complainant.

                    Sh. G.S. Antal, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER

PER ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

1.                  Sh. Kulbir Singh Lathwal, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Toyota Globe Automobile Pvt. Ltd./Opposite Party (hereinafter called the “OP”). Brief facts of the case are that on 13.06.2013, the complainant visited the showroom of OP and expressed his desire to purchase a “Toyota Etios Liva GD(M) color-white” model car. At that point of time, Mr. Punit Kumar, the authorised representative of OP told the complainant that the Ex-showroom price of aforesaid model is Rs.6,08,548/-. He further told the complainant that Insurance premium would be Rs.22146/- plus Logistics & Handling charges would be Rs.3550/-, thereby making up the total amount payable towards the purchase of aforesaid model of Car to be Rs.6,34,244/-. When the complainant negotiated for price, the OP agreed to give discount and closed the deal with the complainant for Rs.6,00,000/- towards the purchase of aforesaid model of car including the mud flaps, mats and smile pack. (The above facts have been admitted by OP in its reply). Thus, the OP created the impression of giving a discount of Rs.34,244/- in the mind of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to purchase the aforesaid car at the discounted price of Rs.6,00,000/- and duly signed the Commitment Check List dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure R-1). Thereafter, the complainant purchased the aforesaid model of Car bearing VIN No.MBJK4ZBT700045583~0513, Engine No.1ND1326952, Key No.53088, External Colour White from the OP vide invoice No.INV130000176 dated 14.06.2013 (Annexure C-3/ R-2) having worth Rs.5,69,479/-.  The complainant made a payment of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the purchase of aforesaid model of Car. In addition to aforesaid Invoice no. INV130000176 dated 14.06.2013, OP raised Invoice No.STNV130000176 dated 14.06.2013 for Rs.3550/- towards logistics and handling charges (Annexure R-3), Certificate of Insurance-cum-policy having premium paid for Rs.22146/- (Annexure R-4), smile pack (Toyota Service Value Pack) costing Rs.1664/-(Annexure R-5), and Invoice No.A13-00654 dated 18.06.2013 for Rs.1901/- towards floor mats and mud guards (Annexure R-6). The Grand total of aforesaid invoices turn out to be Rs.5,98,740/- and an amount of Rs.1260/- was remaining for refund which was later adjusted in the price of fog lamps fitted in the car at the request of the complainant.
2.                  The complainant avers that the representative of OP told him that on purchase of aforesaid model of car, an insurance of Rs.22,146/- as well as mats, mat slap and service package of Rs.1,640/- would be given free of charge; however this fact has been out rightly denied by the OP in its reply. In contra, the OP averred in its reply that at the time of taking of the delivery of the car, the complainant noticed small dot on the car and accordingly, the representative of OP in addition to aforesaid alleged discount gave further discount of Rs.1000/-. The complainant issued a registered AD legal notice dated 16.08.2013 to the OP complaining therein the excess amount of Rs.30,521/- (Rs.6,00,000 – Rs.5,69,479) taken from the complainant; but the said notice was not responded to by the OP.
3.                  We have heard ld. Counsel for complainant and OP and have also perused the case file as well as written statement/reply filed by OP.
4.                  As per Annexure R-2, the Ex-showroom price of aforesaid model of car is Rs.5,69,479/-. The breakup of this amount has been shown as:

	Price of one Toyota ETIOS LIVA GD(M)
	Value added tax (VAT) @ 12.50%
	Cess on VAT @5%

  This runs ipso facto contrary to the stand taken by the OP in its reply and Annexure R-1 wherein they maintain that the Ex-showroom Price represented by OP to the complainant was Rs.6,08,548/-.  

5.                  We have given a thoughtful consideration to the above facts and have arrived at an unimpeachable conclusion that the OP has committed a fraud on the complainant by misrepresenting the actual Ex-showroom price. It is prima facie crystal clear that the OP has sold a car which is quite of lesser amount (Rs.5,69,479/-) than was represented by it (Rs.6,08,548/-) to the Complainant.  By doing this act, the OP has caused wrongful loss to the complainant. Reference Pricing has a strong impact on consumers’ shopping behaviour making them more likely to purchase from the trader with the offer/discount advertised. The nutshell of the facts in hand is that in reality, no discount was given by the OP to the complainant on the basis of which it induced the customer to purchase the car from it. The OP has thus dishonestly induced the complainant to purchase car from it and thus adopted an anti-competitive practice in the market. The complainant might had in his mind the impression of purchasing the car costing Rs.6,08,548/-. Had the complainant being not misled with the represented price for the actual price, he would have looked into the higher segment. Also, the resale value of the car which the complainant might have in his mind would definitely go lower with these facts in his hand, thereby causing him constructive monetary loss as well. The impact of this fraudulent act practiced by OP is that it has limited the options of the complainant which he might have otherwise looked into, had the facts of alleged discount and actual price of the car were brought to his knowledge.
6.                  In view of the above discussion, we arrive at a conclusion that the OP has adopted deceptive trade practice and thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant.
7.                  For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed with costs and the OP is hereby directed to comply with the following direction within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

1. To pay Rs.34,244/- i.e. alleged discount agreed to be paid by the OP @ 6% per annum from the date of purchase of car i.e. 14.06.2013 till realization. If the OPs failed to pay the above said amount within stipulated period then they will pay the interest @ 12% per annum; and
2. To pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards harassment and mental agony; and
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

                        Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 28.06.2017

          Sd/-                                                       Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

PUSHPENDER KUMAR                ANAMIKA GUPTA                          D.N. ARORA

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                              Sd/-

ANAMIKA GUPTA

         MEMBER