BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 547 of 2015
Date of Institution: 03.09.2015
Date of Decision: 01.07.2016
S.Ghansham Singh Dilawari son of Sh.Harbans Singh Dilawari, resident of 432-Diamond Avenue, Majitha Road, Amristar.
Complainant
Versus
- M/s.Prestige Honda Lally Motor P.Ltd. through its Principle Officer/ Director, G.T.Road, Near Bye Pass, Amritsar.
- Honda City, Honda Car India Ltd. Through its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office-West, D-126, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC Shiravne, Nerul Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai (Maharashtra)-400706.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Simranjeet Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Ghansham Singh Dilawari has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased a car Honda City-1.5 EMT vide invoice No. 509 dated 31.8.2014 for value of Rs.8,58,900/- from Opposite Party No.1. Copy of invoice attached. Besides this, Opposite Party No.1 also charged Rs.4,000/- extra from the complainant as logistic charges vide receipt No. 509 dated 31.8.2014, copy of receipt is also annexed. At the time of selection and purchase of the car, the complainant was told that the said car is two months old manufactured car and the complainant had purchased the same believing on their words/ assurances. Opposite Party No.1 also charged Registration Charges from the complainant for which they have delivered RC bearing No.PB-02-CK-6607. On receipt of the RC of the vehicle, the complainant was very much surprised to see that the car is six months old manufactured i.e. in March, 2014. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 in their office at Amritsar and brought this unfair trade practice in their notice, but they instead of to listen to his genuine requests threatened and humiliate him in the presence of their staff and other customers present in the office. By the above acts of unfair trade practice of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant has suffered financial loss of depreciation amount on the said car. Opposite Party had illegally and unlawfully charged Rs.4,000/- from the complainant as logistic charges for which they are not authorized to recover under the provisions of Trade Act and under Motor vehicle Act. Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturer of said car and Opposite Party No.1 is authorized dealer, therefore, both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally responsible for committed unfair trade practice, charges illegally amount for logistic charges. Under the circumstances and facts, it is prayed that Opposite Parties be directed to refund back depreciation charges amount of Rs.85,890/-+ Rs.4000/- as logistic charges illegally charged + Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental tension, on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the hands of Opposite Parties. Hence this complaint.
2. Upon notice, both the Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing separate written statements.
3. In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed various material acts. As such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this Forum; that the present complaint is legally not maintainable; that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant and against the replying Opposite Party. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant had purchased Honda City Car from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill as referred to in this para. It is further admitted that Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs.4,000/- from the complainant, but it is specifically denied that said amount has been charged on extra side by Opposite Party No.1. In fact, the aforesaid amount of Rs.4000- has been received by Opposite Party No.1 from the complainant on account of expenses incurred on polishing and day to day upkeeping, maintenance and warehouse etc. It is further a relevant fact to he mentioned over here that although on the receipt issued by Opposite Party No.1, the charges have been described as logistic charges, but these are the handling charges only as detailed above and the word ‘logistic’ has been inadvertently mentioned because these are the old receipts where the word ‘logistic’ is inadvertently mentioned instead of the word ‘handling’. However, if in case this forum comes to the conclusion that Opposite Party No.1 is liable to return the said charges on account of such wrong mentioning, although inadvertently on the part of Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 is ready to return the said amount of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. But however, it is specifically denied that he complainant at the time of selection and purchase of the car in question was ever told by the representative of Opposite Party No.1 that the car is two months old manufactured. No such assurance was ever given by any of the representative of Opposite Party No.1. It is a relevant fact to me mentioned over here that the model of any vehicle runs from January to December of that particular year and it is only after the month of December that the year of manufacture/ model of the vehicle changes and in case any vehicle is manufactured between the months of January and December is sold between these months of the particular year in which the vehicle has been manufactured then the year of manufactured and model remains same. The same is the situation in the case in hand also because although the car in question was manufactured in the month of March, 2014, but the same was sold to the complainant in the same very year i.e. on 31.8.2014 and thus the model of the car in question remained as 2014 and it can never been said that it was an old manufactured car because the car was sold to the complainant in the same year in which it was manufactured. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied. There is no any unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1 nor the complainant has suffered any financial loss on account of any act on the part of the replying Opposite Party. Hence, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. Opposite Party No.2 in its written version also took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that relationship between Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is purely on principal to principal basis and each party is responsible for its own act. The complainant never had any direct dealing with Opposite Party No.2; the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1 who is one of the authorized dealer. Opposite Party No.1/ authorized dealer mainly look into providing ancillary and after sale services to its customers. It is only in case of any manufacturing defects then Opposite Party No.2 is required to meet its obligation as per the standard prescribed; that the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of the answering Opposite Party as the complainant has failed to establish in his complaint any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 can not be held liable for any kind of ancillary services with respect to the sale of the vehicle being offered by the authorized dealers. It is submitted that the complainant has raised issues regarding the manufacturing date of the vehicle. However, there has been no averment regarding any manufacturing defect or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2; the complainant has not suffered any damage due to any acts of answering Opposite Party. There is not a single averment against answering Opposite Party in the whole complaint; the complainant cannot allege deficiency of service without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any willful default, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service on the part of Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, the present complaint being devoid of any merits and without any merits and without any cause of action is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; that the complainant has miserably failed to bring the present complaint within the ambit of section 2(1) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, the complainant has blatantly failed to raise any allegation against the answering Opposite Party has failed to even address the critical aspects as outlined in section 2 (1) (C) of the Act. On merits, the facts narrated in the complainant have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
5. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of invoice Ex.C1, copy of receipt Ex.C2, copy of insurance cover Ex.C3, copy of RC Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, copies of postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 and closed his evidence.
6. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rickpinder Singh, Sales Quality Manager Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
8. From the appraisal of evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant did purchase the Honda City-1.5 EMT on payment of Rs.8,58,900/- from Opposite Party No.1, vide invoice No. 509 dated 31.8.2014, copy whereof is Ex.C1. Besides the above said price of the car in question, Opposite Party No.1 also charged Rs.4,000/- extra as logistic charges i.e. handling charges from the complainant. This fact that Opposite Party No.1 has charged the logistic charges from the complainant is an admitted fact. In its written reply, Opposite Party No.1 has also stated that they are ready to refund the amount of Rs.4000/- charged from the complainant as logistic charges. Further fact that since the car in question was manufactured 6 months prior to its sale and on that account the complainant was entitled for depreciation charges equal to the price of the car, is not sustainable at law because when the car is manufactured in between January and December of a particular year and the same has to be sold within that year. Consequently, in such a case car cannot be said to be six months old or two months old as is the case of the complainant. The complainant has not suffered any loss on account of depreciation simply on account of the fact that the car was manufactured six months before the date of its sale. The complainant has failed to bring to the notice of this Forum any law to prove the deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1, on that account. There is no even an iota of evidence on record to reach the conclusion that any assurance was given by the employees of Opposite Party No.1 that car was manufactured two months before the date of its sale. Although the complainant has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of his allegations yet there is no other evidence to corroborate the said fact rather the opposite parties have denied those allegations in their affidavit Ex.OP1/1. In such a situation, the allegations shall be deemed to have been not proved on record & those shall have to be disbelieved.
9. From the aforesaid discussion, it becomes amply clear that the complainant has been able to prove his case partly; particularly for refund of logistic charges to the tune of Rs.4,000/- and Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the logistic charges to the tune of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing this order until full and final recovery. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. However, the remaining claim of the complainant fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 01.07.2016. (S.S.Panesar) President
(Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member Member
hrg
