Karnataka

Kolar

CC/11/2015

G.Sunder Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. MAndovi Motors Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Sathyanaraya

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20/03/2015

Date of Order: 04/08/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 04^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 11 OF 2015

Sri. G. Sunder Raj,

S/o. Ganeshan,

Aged About 57 Years,

No.4363, Nalanda Vihar,

3^rd Main, 4^th Cross,

Amaravathi Nagar,

Bangarpet, Kolar District.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. B.S. Sathyanarayana, Advocate)   ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

(1) M/s. Mandovi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

(Authorized Maruthi Suzuki Dealer)

#40/4, Showroom-Lavelle Road,

Bangalore-560 001.

Rep. by its Manager.

 

(2) M/s. Mandovi Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

(Authorized Maruthi Suzuki Dealer)

Bangalore-Chennai Road,

National Highway No.75,

Kondarajanahalli Village,

Kolar Taluk & District.

Rep. by its Manager.

(Both Ops-1 & 2 are represented

by Sriyuth. HCM Reddy, Advocate)                 …. Opposite Parties.

 

 

-: ORDER:-

BY Sri. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted the complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has sought relief of refund of Rs.6,750/- from the OP-1 which was recovered in excess and Rs.5,000/- collected towards unexplained incidental charges and damages in a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service, as well, Rs.5,000/- towards costs together with interest at the rate of 18% pa from 23.09.2014 till realization.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, OP-2 has a showroom at Kolar and OP-1 is the main showroom in Bangalore as described in the cause-title above.  It is contended that, on 17.06.2014 he (the complainant) had booked for a brand new ERTIGA VDI BSIV – R3RDCL Silky Silver Colour vehicle (car) with the OP-1 who had quoted the road cost of the vehicle in a sum of Rs.8,24,895.34.  And that on 17.06.2014 he had paid Rs.5,000/- towards advance booking.  And that later on he had paid Rs.50,000/- on 13.08.2014, Rs.7,76,595/- on 23.09.2014 and Rs.500/- on 15.10.2014.  And that thus the OP-1 had received Rs.8,32,095/- towards purchase of the said vehicle.  And that thus the OP-1 had received Rs.7,200/- in excess than that of the actual cost of the vehicle on road.  And that he had obtained delivery of the said vehicle on 15.10.2014.

 

(a)    Further it is contended that, when refund was claimed for the said excess sum of Rs.7,200/-, the OP-1 did issue statement of accounts dated: 21.10.2014 adjusting the same by giving explanation that, Rs.450/- came to be collected towards Temporary Registration and Rs.6,750/- towards Incidental Charges.  And that he could have no complaint with regard to sum of Rs.450/- adjusted in respect of Temporary Registration.  However he has contended that, with regard to sum of Rs.6,750/- collected towards contended incidental charges unexplained since illegal he was entitled for refund of the same.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, likewise collection of Rs.5,000/- towards unexplained incidental charges since unwarranted he was entitled to refund.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint seeking the above stated reliefs. 

 

(c)    With a list dated: 20.03.2015 the complainant has submitted following five documents:-

(i)      Xerox copy of the vehicle and charges invoice.

(ii)     Xerox copies of the receipts 4 in No’s.

(iii)    Xerox copy of the statement of accounts.

(iv)    Legal Notice dated: 06.12.2014 (office copy).

(v)      Postal Acknowledgement (original).

 

03.   In response to the notices issued the OP Nos.1 & 2 put in their appearance through their learned counsel and have submitted written version resisting claim of the complainant in toto.

 

04.   It is specifically contended that, the complainant had paid sum of Rs.8,32,095/- towards purchase of the said car and they had issued the order booking form cum sales contract in which details regarding cost of the vehicle, insurance, handling charges, etc., have been mentioned.  And that in the order booking form they had mentioned a sum of Rs.6,750/- was to be paid as handling charges for which the complainant accepted by duly signing the order booking form.  And that they have issued statement of accounts with regard to the said sum of Rs.7,200/- by explaining that, Rs.450/- came to be collected towards Temporary Registration whereas Rs.6,.750/- came to be collected towards incidental charges.  And that the said document has been annexed as Exhb-1.

 

(a)    Further it is contended that, Exhb-2 annexed is Xerox copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WB-(C-No.8408/2011) dated: 20.04.2012.  And that the relevant extract in the judgment is to read thus:-

“Para-10………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………..

The undertaking aforesaid obtained by the respondents No.1 & 2 licensing Authority from the dealers though being widely worded, cannot come in the way of the dealers charging the extras for extra services rendered in connection with sale and which the respondents No.1 & 2 are not empowered to control/regulate.  Notice may also be taken of the fact that in today’s day of aggressive marketing of vehicles and multifarious choices available to the purchasers/consumers the vehicle dealers giving discounts are not unknown (as also evident from the respondents No.1 & 2 making a provision (supra) to that effect) and it is generally seen that the purchasers of vehicle les are in a bargaining position with the dealers.  If the vehicle dealers are providing any extras in terms of services, goods, fuel etc., to the purchasers and the purchasers agree to pay therefore, in the absence of any law to control the same, this court cannot issue any direction with respect thereto.”

 

Thus contending rejection of the complaint is sought.  It is worth to note that, the said Exhbs-1 & 2 are annexed to this written version.

 

05.   The very complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence along with Order Booking/Commitment Checklist bearing No.4585.  Whereas on behalf of the OP Nos.1 & 2 Mr. K.Yeshwant Rai, Vice President of the OP-1 has submitted his affidavit evidence.  On 29.07.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted written arguments on behalf of the complainant, whereas, the Learned counsel appearing for the OP Nos.1 & 2 has submitted written arguments together with copy of Order Booking/Commitment Checklist bearing No.4585.

 

06.   On 03.08.2015 heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

 

07.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether OP Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of deficiency in service as contended by the complainant?

 

2.   If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

3.   What order?

 

08.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT No.1:    In the Affirmative

POINT No.2:    The complainant is held entitled to recover sum of Rs.15,000/- together with interest @ 9% pa from 20.03.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization for to be recovered from OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally with costs.

 

POINT No.3:    As per the final order

                        for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT No.1 & 2:-

09.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a)    sale of the said car on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2 to the complainant and receipt of Rs.8,32,095/- on the part of the Ops as paid by the complainant as on 23.09.2014 and delivery of the said vehicle to the complainant on 15.10.2014 are not at all in dispute.

 

(b)    However the very OP Nos.1 & 2 have relied with regard to booking date as on 17.06.2014 vide Exhb-1 and on 13.08.2014 vide said document No.1 produced by the complainant.  Exhb-1 discloses handling charges as Rs.6,750/- and temporary registration charges as Rs.700/-.  If this document is looked in to with document No.1 produced by the complainant in juxta position the self contradictions are manifest, for, OP Nos.1 & 2 are the authors of these very two documents that came in to being on different dates.  Undoubtedly the document No.1 is dated: 13.08.2014 and the order No. is SOB14001081 this being subsequent dated document when compared to said Exhb-1 as this is dated: 17.06.2014, this subsequent dated document should prevail.  This document which gives details of the price on various accounts/heads is to disclose that total invoice amount was in a sum of Rs.8,24,895.34.  Besides this document is totally silent with regard to the contended handling charges of Rs.6,750/-.

 

(c)    Furthermore this Exhb-1 is to disclose that temporary registration charges claimed were in sum of Rs.700/- whereas, indisputably under this head OP Nos.1 & 2 did collect only Rs.450/-, for which the complainant has already pleaded as noted above that this payment is not in issue.  Therefore we are to concentrate as to whether OP Nos.1 & 2 could claim sum of Rs.6,750/- under the head handling charges.  True this document dated: 17.06.2014 discloses the said sum albeit this document also discloses Rs.700/- as the amount towards temporary registration charges.  But what is the amount collected by the OP Nos.1 & 2 towards temporary registration charge ?  It is only Rs.450/-.  Since the complainant has paid this amount and the OP-1 & 2 have accepted the same we have no hesitation to hold that, mechanical entry made in Exhb-1 under the head handling charges as in a sum of Rs.6,750/- requires to be ignored as the very OP Nos.1 & 2 having forgone this document have entered in to intended booking order dated: 13.08.2014 which restricts the total value of the said vehicle as in a sum of Rs.8,24,895.34 which consideration has been paid rather of higher side, for, the total payment made was in sum of Rs.8,32,095/-.  Therefore we are of the definite opinion that, principles enunciated vide Exhb-2 are inapplicable to the case on hand, for, no additional services were rendered on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2 so as to entitle for the said sum of Rs.6,750/-.

 

(d)    The learned counsel appearing for the Ops pressed in to service stating that, the said Exhb-1 since to disclose full details comparing to the copy of contended such document annexed to affidavit evidence of the complainant the said document produced by the complainant is false one.  We do not agree to this proposition for two reasons.  Firstly, the very Ops gave up the order booking /commitment letter dated: 17.06.2014 in preference to subsequent order dated: 13.08.2014 as noted above, secondly we have no hesitation to hold that, the copy of half filled proforma in the form of order booking/commitment checklist dated: 17.06.2014 vide No.4585 was issued to the complainant by the very Ops, and it is high time for them to deny this document being very much of their own.  Certainly so many columns in the copy given to the complainant have remained unfilled.  For this complainant cannot be blamed, for, the OP Nos.1 & 2 having had the advantage of retaining the counter files of this document with them resorted to undue-advantage of filling up the columns under the head finance scheme and payment details.  Therefore the OP Nos.1 & 2 cannot take undue advantage of their own wrong.  However this document filed and relied by the very Ops we are bound to agree with the complainant that, under this document he had paid advance of Rs.5,000/- as booking amount.  The copy of document so produced by the complainant which is half filled has one and the same handwriting to the said extent of half filling in Exhb-1, whereas entries under said finance scheme, and payment details columns are in different hand writings.  It would mean that, after such copy of this document was handed-over to the complainant, we repeat, that the OP Nos.1 & 2 went on filling up the said columns.  Thus in this Exhb-1 is unsafe document.  However, OP Nos.1 & 2 cannot deny that they had received booking amount of Rs.5,000/- under this document.  Thus this is also an excess amount that has remained with them.

 

(e)    Therefore the complainant is entitled to refund of the said sum of Rs.6,750/- and then sum of Rs.5,000/- which would come to Rs.11,750/-.  As the OP Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of receiving the said excess amount for which neither there is a service nor sale of any spare parts of the vehicle, they are necessarily guilty of deficiency in service.  Hence we assess that the complainant is entitled to damages in a sum of Rs.3,250/-.  Consequently the complainant is entitled to total sum of Rs.15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% pa from 20.03.2015 being date of the complaint till realization for being recovered from the OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

POINT No. 3:-

10.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons, the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- as hereunder:-

(a)    The complainant is held entitled to recover total sum of Rs.15,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% pa from 20.03.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization for being recovered from OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 04^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                 PRESIDENT