Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/24/2017

Amit Anjani Poddar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Ramani Cars Pvt. Ltd.& 3 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                   BEFORE       Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                   PRESIDENT

                                         Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                 MEMBER

 

CC.NO.24/2017

 DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

Amit Anjani Poddar

7/1, First Floor, Agathiar Street

Teachers Colony

Erode – 638 011                                                        ....Complainant

 

                                                  Vs 

1.       M/s. Ramani Cars (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

No.307/1, Perundurai Road

Sengodampalayam, Thindal Post

Erode- 638 012

 

2.       M/s. Ramani Cars (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Volkswagen Salem

Plot No.55/2B, Omalur Main Road,

Near Five Roads, Narasothipatty

Salem – 636 004

 

3.       M/s. Volkswagen India (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

E1, MIDC Industrial Area (Phase III)

Village Nigoje Mhalunge, Kharabwadi

Tal Khed, Chakan

Pune – 410 501, Maharashtra

 

4.       M/s. Volkswagen Group Sales India (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director

4^th Floor, Silver Utopia

Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala

Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 099                       ....Opposite parties

 

Complainant                                                :  In person                                   

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd Opposite parties             :  M/s. E.K. Kumaresan

Counsel for 3^rd & 4^th Opposite parties             :  M/s. A.R.Ramanathan

 

        This complaint is coming before us for hearing finally on 21.4.2022 and on hearing the arguments of counsel appearing for complainant and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following order:

ORDER

Justice R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.       This complaint has been filed under Sec.17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite parties claiming for a direction to the opposite parties to deliver Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 AT Volkswagen car inclusive of all taxes, registration charges etc., or to repay the cost of the car @ Rs.1450000/- with 24% interest and  a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.1000/- per month towards rent for parking the car and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards legal expenses alongwith cost.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

          The complainant had booked a new Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 AT Volkswagen car on 3.9.2016 for Rs.1450000/- which is inclusive of all taxes, registration charges, RTO expenses, cut mat, full mat, mud flap, full Teflon coating, car cover, full insurance with zero depreciation and bumper etc. and to deliver the car at Erode with the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant desired delivery of the car on 8.9.2016 being the birth date of his son.  The 1^st opposite party had its office at Erode, informed that there is no car in stock with them, as well as with the 2^nd opposite party at Salem.  The complainant was further informed that an online booking will be made with the opposite parties 3 & 4 so that the car will be immediately shipped from the 3^rd opposite party.  Based on the verbal booking confirmation by 1^st opposite party, and on his instructions an advance of Rs.50000/- was paid on 3.9.2016 from HDFC Bank account.  On 7.9.2016 he was informed by the 1^st opposite party that the car was in transit from the 3^rd opposite party and will be ready for delivery on 8.9.2016 and the complainant was advised to pay the balance of Rs.1400000/- to the 2^nd opposite party.  Accordingly, the complainant had paid Rs.14 lakhs on 8.9.2016.  The complainant was also asked to sign on blank papers on 3.9.2016 and 8.9.2016. On 8.9.2016 a Volkswagen Car having chasis No.MEXF16603 GT 092433 and Engine No.CWX 136635 that has run for 273 Kilometers was delivered at Erode by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party assured that the permanent registration of the car, Teflon coating, full mat, car cover and all other commitments made at the time of booking shall be performed within 30 days.  No document was given to the complainant and he was assured that the documents shall be handed over afterwards.  While so on 10.9.2016 scan copy of Invoice and 2^nd page of insurance policy was sent by e-mail by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant and the hard copy of the Invoice No.Jun/16/47 dt.30.6.2016, temporary registration certificate had been handed over by the 1^st opposite party.  It includes sales contract and service schedule.  Particulars for permanent registration and signature of the complainant was obtained by the 1^st opposite party on 10.9.2016 and was informed that the car would be taken for getting permanent registration to be done on 3.10.2016.  On 1.10.2016 the executives of the opposite parties 1 & 2 wanted cash for permanent registration and assured reimbursement.  When the complainant insisted for a recorded transaction, they delayed permanent registration as they know that 7.10.2016 was the last date.  In the meantime the complainant approached HDFC Bank, Erode for a loan.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties directly went to the HDFC bank Erode and collected the Manager’s cheque for Rs.190955/- on 5.10.2016 for permanent registration of the car.  As per invoice it revealed that the date of delivery of the vehicle is 30.6.2016.  The warranty for the car to the previous customer had commenced on 30.6.2016, it means that the opposite parties have colluded in selling a second hand car that was sold and delivered to another customer which has run 273 Km, for reasons best known to them had been returned by that customer.  Hence the complainant had issued a lawyer notice on 15.11.2016 to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  A reply has been received by the opposite parties for the lawyer notice on 30.11.2016.  Therefore, a rejoinder for the lawyer notice had been sent by the complainant on 20.12.2016.  But there was no response for the said rejoinder.  Therefore, he filed this complaint praying for a direction to the opposite parties to replace the car or to refund the cost of the car alongwith compensation and cost.

 

3.       Countering the complaint, the version of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties was filed as follows:

          It is true that the complainant had booked a new Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 AT Volkswagen car for Rs.1450000/-.  But it is false to state that the amount of Rs.1450000/- includes all taxes, all registration charges and road tax, RTO expenses, etc.  On the other hand the 1^st opposite party agreed to provide Mud Flap and cut mat as FOC accessories and the same have been provided to the new car of the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party has not committed full floor mat and car cover anywhere in the sales contract form.  Further Teflon coating is also not committed by the 1^st opposite party, since the car booked by the complainant does not require Teflon coating.  At first the complainant desired delivery of the car on 8.9.2016 being the birth date of his son and the 1^st opposite party informed that there is no car in stock with the opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence informed that online booking will be made to opposite parties 3 and 4 so that the car will be immediately shipped from Maharashtra plant and based on the verbal booking confirmation by the 1^st opposite party that an advance of Rs.50000/- was paid by the complainant on 3.9.2016 is denied.  On the other hand the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that even if the vehicle is booked online from the manufacturer, the vehicle will not arrive at the showroom of the 1^st opposite party within 8.9.2016. But the complainant requested for alternative measure for delivery of the vehicle particularly on 8.9.2016 without fail.  Hence the 1^st opposite party alternatively informed the complainant that a new Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 AT car was booked for someother customer in the month of June 2016, and the new car arrived at the show-room of the 1^st opposite party and thereafter the customer postponed the purchase of the new car due to his personal reasons and the said car is available in the show-room, and if the complainant is willing to take delivery of the said new car, the 1^st opposite party will make someother arrangement to the said customer.  Accordingly, the complainant inspected the said new car, perused the relevant documents, after satisfying himself with the said new car had given his consent for delivery of the said new car with instructions to deliver the new car on 8.9.2016 at Erode, hence the 1^st opposite party delivered the new Vento Highline At Diesel car bearing Vin No.MEXF16603GT092433 and Engine No.CWX136635 invoiced in the month of June 2016 to the complainant on 8.9.2016 at Erode.  It is not correct to state that the 1^st opposite party informed that the car was in transit from 3^rd opposite party and will be ready for delivery on 8.9.2016 and advised the complainant to pay the balance of Rs.1400000/-.  Whereas the complainant had paid the remaining Rs.14,00,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party, through their bankers viz. HDFC bank only a day before the delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant was not asked to sign in any blank papers.  On 8.9.2016 the Volkswagen car having chasis No.MEXF16603 GT 092433 and Engine No.136635 was delivered at Erode by the 1^st opposite party, and this opposite party assured the complainant that permanent registration of the car and all other accessories and all other commitments given at the time of booking shall be performed within 30 days.  No document was handed over and there was no assurance given in this regard.  The particulars for permanent registration and his signature was obtained by the 1^st opposite party on 10.9.2016 and was informed that the car would be taken from complainant for getting permanent registration on 3.10.2016.  In fact as per the terms and conditions, the registration will be done only at Salem RTO office, but to extend the facility on customer’s request the registration was done at Erode.  The complainant had very well known that the last day for registration will be on 7.10.2016.  Further he has not furnished the required documents, and also Demand Draft, moreover he was out of station on 7.10.2016.  The 1^st opposite party is ready to facilitate the complainant to get the permanent registration of the vehicle, if he handover the required Demand Draft for permanent registration with penalty and original documents of proof.  The car sold to the complainant is a brand new one and it is not an old and already sold car.  From the date of arrival, the said car was kept in the show-room of the 2^nd opposite party only.  Suppressing the above facts, the complainant has given false information for the reasons bet known to him.  Though the complainant had handed over the cheque for Rs.190955/- on 5.10.2016 for permanent registration, he was not cooperating for permanent registration of the vehicle and hence the opposite party had returned the Demand Draft through post to the complainant on 13.10.2016.  Since the complainant insisted for delivery of the car on 8.9.2016 the 1^st opposite party opted the complainant to take delivery of a new Ventro Highline Diesel 1.5 AT car booked for someother customer in the month of June 2016, and kept in the showroom of the 2^nd opposite party.  It was also informed that already invoices were raised in the name of someother customer.  The blame for the delay in registration is false.  Only after getting approval and on undertaking given by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party had delivered the car already booked for a customer.  In order to get unlawful gain from these opposite parties and to tarnish the name of these opposite parties, the complainant had filed this present complaint.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 4.      The version of the 3^rd opposite party is as follows:

          The 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer of the car.  The 3^rd opposite party do not sell any cars manufactured by them neither to any dealers nor to any customers directly.   It is only the 4^th opposite party who provides the warranty to the dealers and customers for the cars which is manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is neither necessary nor a proper party and is no way connected with the above complaint.  There is no cause of action against this opposite party.  Thus prayed for dismissal of complaint against them. 

 

5.       The version of the 4^th opposite party are as follows:

          This opposite party carries on their business on principal to principal basis.  Accepting bookings of the car from the customer, delivering car, issuance of invoice to the customer, providing benefits under any applicable scheme, facilitating customers for obtaining insurance policy, facilitating for registration etc., are all the matters within the exclusive domain of the vehicle selling dealer of 4^th opposite party.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party.  Therefore, this opposite party is not liable for any deficiency in service and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them. 

 

6.       In support of their case, proof affidavits were filed by all the parties alongwith their documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A50 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the 4^th opposite party.

 

7.       Though the opposite parties filed their written versions and written arguments, they were not present at the time of oral arguments, eventhough sufficient time was granted.  We have heard the complainant, perused the versions, proof affidavits and documents and gone through the written arguments carefully.

 

8.       Though very many allegations raised, the main contention of the complainant is that he had booked a Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 AT Volkswagen car on 3.9.2016 with the 1^st opposite party with a request to deliver it on 8.9.2016 i.e., on his son’s birthday.  Accordingly the car was delivered, but the invoice was dt.30.6.2016, which means the car was delivered to someother 3^rd person on 30.6.2016 itself.  Thereby the warranty for the said car commenced on 30.6.2016 itself.  Therefore,  according to the complainant, the opposite parties are responsible for selling the old car.

9.       But it is the reply of the opposite parties, that since the car was not available with the 1^st opposite party at Erode, and also because the complainant insisted for the delivery on 8.9.2016 itself, they have made someother arrangement and delivered the car.  Infact an arrangement was made to inspect the new car by the complainant at Salem, and the complainant had inspected the car and given his consent for delivery.  The said car was not run for 273 Kms at the time of delivery at Erode showroom as alleged by the complainant.  In this regard it is pertinent to note that the gate pass at the time of delivery from the opposite parties 1 & 2 would show the vehicle had run only 20 Kms. and also details of this particular vehicle at the Erode Gate which reads as 103 Kms at the time of delivery at about 7.50 pm on 8.9.2016.  The difference of 83 Kms is the distance from the Salem Showroom to Erode Branch on regular route via highway.  Hence the difference is only 83 Kms due to transit of the vehicle and not 273 Kms.

10.     In view of the submissions made the only point to be decided is

          1.       Whether the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have informed the complainant that the vehicle was already booked by someother person?

          2.       Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4?

 

11.     POINT No.1 & 2:

                    As per the version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties the car was intended for someother customer, since he has not come forward to purchase the car, the said car was offered for the complainant. 

          Though the opposite parties 1^st and 2^nd has averred as above, they have not produced any document to show that someother customer had opted for purchase of the said car by way of making some advance amount for purchase of car viz. Sales Contract Form as seen under Ex.A1 furnished to the complainant at the time of booking.  Moreover, the version, proof affidavit and written arguments are all silent about the reason, why the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have raised the invoice on  30.6.2016, while the complainant met the opposite parties 1 and 2 only on 3.9.2016.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties themselves have admitted in their proof affidavit that the date mentioned in the invoice and the warranty for the car to the previous customer has commenced on 30.6.2016 as true and correct.  Therefore, in view of the submission of the opposite parties a suspicion would arise that the car had been used by someother person, later it was delivered to the complainant on 8.9.2016, by stating that it is a new car. 

          In view of the statement of the opposite parties, the question that arose is whether the alleged customer had paid the entire amount of the car, if so then why he had not opted to take delivery of the car?  If he has not paid the cost of the car, then as to why the 1^st opposite party had raised the invoice by putting dt.30.6.2016, are all unanswered.  Therefore, the submission of the opposite parties seems to be an imaginatory one,  and in our considered opinion the opposite parties are trying to conceal some fact, and trying to blame the complainant. 

          It is quiet common that a customer will like to buy a brand new car only from the dealer of the car.  Even if the version of the opposite party that the car was not used by anybody else is accepted, no prudent man will accept for the purchase of car with an anti dated invoice and when the warranty also commences three months prior to the purchase of the car.  The opposite party had also not proved that the car has run only for 103 kms. i.e., from Salem to Erode when the complainant would submit that it has run for 273 Kms.  Therefore in our considered opinion, the request of the complainant to provide an alternative car ought to have been accepted by the opposite parties.  The refusal of the opposite parties had unnecessarily driven the complainant to file a complaint before this commission. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

 

12.     The opposite parties 1 and 2 herein are the dealers, and the 3^rd opposite party is the manufacturer and the 4^th opposite party is responsible for sale of the vehicle.  In this case, the 3^rd opposite party would contend that the relationship between the 3^rd  & 4^th opposite parties  and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are on principal to principal basis, whereas they have not produced any document to establish the same.  Therefore, the manufacturer of the car is also liable for the deficiency committed.

 

13.     In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to deliver a new car or to refund the price of the car to the complainant.

          As far as the award for compensation is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that for the act of selling the car which was intended to other customer and raising the invoice dt.30.6.2016, and for delivering the car which had run for 273 Kms, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are solely responsible, therefore we are of the considered opinion that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant considering the ordeal undergone by the complainant.   Point No.1 and 2 answered accordingly. 

 

14.     In the result, the complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to deliver a new Vento Highline Diesel Car with all accessories inclusive of all taxes, cut mat, Full mat and Mud Flap, Full Teflon coating, car cover, by paying necessary taxes, registration charges, RTO expenses and Road Taxes, with full insurance with zero depreciation of bumper to bumper with delivery at Erode                                                                OR

          To refund a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- towards the cost of the car alongwith 9% interest from the date of payment till realisation.

          The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-, Time for payment one month,  failing which the amount ordered as compensation shall carry interest @9% p.a., from the date of default, till realisation.

         

VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                   R SUBBIAH     

                MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Exhibits filed on the side of complainant

A1      03.09.2016    Sales contract

A2      30.06.2016    Invoice

A3      10.09.2016    Email by 1^st opposite party

A4                         Invoice copy

A5                         Temporary cer         tificate of Registration

A6                         Volkswagen Sparsh Customer Handbook

A7                         Service Schedule Volkswagen

A8      04.10.2016    Complaint by complainant to OP1

A9      12.10.2016              “        “                  Ops.1,2 and 4

A10           “            Postal Receipt for OP1

A11     13.10.2016    Acknowledgement by OP1

A12     12.10.2016    Postal receipt for OP2

A13     13.10.2016    Acknowledgement of OP2

A14     12.10.2016    Postal receipt for OP4

A15     15.10.2016    Acknowledgement for OP4

A16     13.10.2016    Email by OP1

A17     30.10.2016    Complaint by complainant to Ops 1,3 & 4

A18     30.10.2016    Postal Receipt for OP1

A19     31.10.2016    Ackowledgement of OP1

A20     30.10.2016    Postal Receipt for OP4

A21     04.11.2016    Proof of delivery by OP3

A22     30.10.2016    Postal receipt for OP4

A23     02.11.2016              -do-

A24     01.11.2016    Email

A25     15.11.2016    Lawyer notice by complainant to Ops 1 to 4

A26     16.11.2016    Postal receipt of OP1

A27     16.11.2016    Acknowledgement of OP1

A28     15.11.2016    Postal Receipt by OP2

A29     16.11.2016    Acknowledgement of OP2

A30     15.11.2016    Postal receipt for OP3

A31     18.11.2016    Proof of delivery by OP3

A32     15.11.2016    Postal receipt for OP4

A33     18.11.2016    Acknowledgement by OP4

A34     30.11.2016    Reply to lawyer notice by Ops 1 & 2

A35     20.12.2016    Rejoinder for lawyer notice by Ops1 and 2

A36     20.12.2016    Postal receipt

A37     22.12.2016    Acknowledgement

A38     20.12.2016    Postal receipt for OP1

A39     21.12.2016    Acknowledgement by OP1

A40     20.12.2016    Postal receipt of OP2

A41     23.12.2016    Acknowledgement by OP2

A42     20.12.2016    Postal receipt for OP4

A43     24.12.2016    Acknowledgement by OP3

A44     20.12.2016    Postal receipt for OP4

A45     23.12.2016    Acknowledgement by OP4

A46     19.01.2017    Letter from HDFC bank

A47                        Sale certificate

A48     23.06.2016    Tax Invoice

A49                        Form 22

A50                        Details of Manufacturer Invoice & Vehicle

 

 

 

Exhibits of the 4^th opposite party :

B1                         Authorization letter

 

 

   R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                              R SUBBIAH     

           MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT