Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/163/2015

Mrs.C.Durgadevi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Maruti Suzuki Regional Office - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.G.Ganesh Kumar

23 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  31.08.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  23.09.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

SATURDAY  THE 23^rd    DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.163/2015

 

 

Mrs.C.Durgadevi,

W/o E.Pachaiappan,

No.33B, 1^st Floor,

3^rd Main Road, Saraswathi Nagar,

Hasthinapuram,

Chennai – 600 064.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.M/s.Maruti Suzuki Regional Office,

Represented by its Chairperson,

7^th Floor, Capital Towers,

180, Kodambakkam High  Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2.M/s.Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd.,

Represented by its Director,

No. 9 & 10, Velachery Main Road,

Balaji Nagar,

Pallikaranai,

Chennai – 600 100.

 

 

 

3. Mr.Srihari, Branch Head,

M/s. Popular Vehicles and
Services Ltd.,

No.9 & 10, Velachery Main Road,

Balaji Nagar,

Pallikaranai,

Chennai – 600 100.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 13.11.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.G.Ganesh Kumar, Rajasri Ganesh

                                                                    Kumar, N.Meenakshisundaram

 

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                   : Ex - parte

 

Counsel for 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties      : Ms. J.Ranjani Devi

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming damages to an extend of Rs.2,00,000/- with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the Maruti Suzuki       Cars. The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the Maruti Cars and 3^rd opposite party is the service provider of the 1^st opposite party. On 03.02.2015 the complainant visited 2^nd opposite party/dealer for booking of  ‘Maruti Swift Dzire Tour’ car and after getting rough price  estimate from the  sales  executive who had decided process the formalities to generate a loan for purchasing vehicle.

          2. On 11.02.2015 the complainant paid initial booking amount of Rs.10,000/-. The total cost of the vehicle would be Rs.7,20,244/- and the break up particulars of ex-show room price of Rs.6,13,943/-, insurance cost Rs.25,873/- and road  tax and registration charges of Rs.80,428/-. The complainant also a paid a sum of Rs.2,77,500/- in cash on 18.02.2015. Further she was compelled to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- by the 2^nd opposite party towards affidavit charges  and in the said affidavit, she does not put her signature in any documents of affidavit. The complainant also paid Rs.80,428/- towards RC book and road tax charges as demanded by the 2^nd opposite party. She was informed that the RC book will be delivered to her within 30 days.

          3. On 25.02.2015 the vehicle was delivered to her. The complainant also paid Rs. 80,428/-. The complainant was delivered with RC book on 23.03.2015. In the RC she found that only a sum of Rs.61,796/- charged. The complainant questioned the 2^nd opposite party/Branch Manager that why he had collected a sum of Rs.80,428/- as the receipt given only for Rs.61,796/-. The Branch Manager replied that the balance amount is for towards handling and service charges. Then the complainant contacted customer care of the 1^st opposite party on 24.03.2014 through tele-calling and registered a complaint. Though the customer care said that they will arrange a meeting with the 2^nd opposite party and the same was not arranged. The complainant frequently contacted them and however there was no response from them. Finally the 2^nd opposite party refunded a sum of Rs.15,818/- towards the amount collected for registration charges.

          4. The complainant further states that the 2^nd opposite party fraudulently fabricated the affidavit and put the complainant signature without the knowledge of the complainant  in order to get registration certificate and after the fabrication on 25.03.2015, he compelled the complainant and made her to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- which shows the clear case of unfair trade practice of the opposite parties 1 & 2. As a trader it is the duty of the dealer to deliberate all the incurring costs to the customer. Therefore the opposite party committed unfair trade practice and caused mental agony and therefore the complainant filed this complaint claiming damages to an extend of Rs.2,00,000/- with cost of the complaint.

5.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd & 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          It is true that the complainant had came to the 2^nd opposite party showroom on 03.02.2015 with the query on Maruti Swift Dzire Tour Car and the 2^nd opposite party’s sales person has provided the estimation of the vehicle price and its finance options. On 11.02.2015 the complainant came and booked the vehicle by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- and hence the allegations raised by the complainant on 05.02.2015 regarding lack of response from the 2^nd opposite party are all false and concocted story. Infact these charges are incurred by the opposite parties while in the process of handling the vehicle in and out of the showroom including its related hidden costs for the processing of registration formalities till delivery of vehicle to the customer. It is true on the same day, the complainant tendered the balance amount of Rs.2,77,500/- by way of cash and immediately thereafter created lot of issues for urgent delivery of vehicle inspite of the tentative delivery of 30 days quoted at the time of booking.

          6. The complainant was not in possession of certain documents like proof of address in addition to the usual driving license and the opposite parties arranged the same as the complainant demanded for the immediate registration process. It is true that the opposite parties had collected a sum of Rs.80,428/- towards the registration expenses and its statutory charges including the road tax and other related payments. It is false to allege that the percentage of the amount was given as bribe to RTO Tambaram in the name of Handling and service charges. The complainant in order to defame the name of the opposite parties claimed refund of the money, even though she was explained fully at the time of the booking.

7. The complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 25.02.2015 after completing all pre-delivery works by us together with an additional bumper painting work worth Rs.6,500/- provided to her free of cost.  Further, it has been clearly explained to her that the amount of Rs.80,428/- includes the registration fee, road tax, processing fee and handling charges and the detail has been provided in the settlement copy provided to her and she signed the same at the time of delivery. The vehicle dealer who is   rendering service of facilities the registration of the vehicle is only acting as an agent of the buyer and when the customer avails the service  of the dealer for such process they are bound to pay the charges incurred for the same, which is informed well in advance to the customer at the time of booking the vehicle. Likewise, the handling charges amount was also orally communicated to the complainant but the same was omitted to mention in the order booking form. The opposite parties refunded the said amount byway of Demand Draft drawn on IDBI Bank in favour of the complainant for a sum of Rs.15,818/-. Further, the amount remaining was Rs.18,632/- was not as a goodwill gesture on 08.04.2015. There is no negligence act or unfair trade practice done by the opposite parties and he is put to strict proof of the same. It is false to allege that the affidavit has been prepared without her consent and she is put to strict proof of the same. Therefore, the complainant has not suffered any mental agony and hardship, as there is no negligence are deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

 

8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

9. POINT NO :1 

           It is an admitted fact that the 1^st opposite party  is the manufacturer of the  Maruti Suzuki  Cars and the 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the manufacturer and the 3^rd opposite party is the authorized service provider of the 1^st opposite party and the complainant approached 2^nd opposite party dealer on 03.02.2015 with an intention of buying ‘Maruti Swift Dzire Tour’ car and  she also got Ex.A1 preliminary   information sheet with cost of the vehicle and she also paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 11.02.2015 and booked the car and further a sum of Rs.2,77,500/- was paid on 18.02.2015 and apart from that she had availed  the loan for the balance amount and the complainant took delivery of the vehicle on 25.02.2015.

          10. The  complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite parties is that there was no proper response from the 2^nd opposite party and further the 2^nd opposite party collected a sum of Rs.80,428/-  towards RC book and road tax charges and however she was found only a sum of Rs.61,796/- in the RC book and therefore towards excess collection in respect of registration charges is deficiency on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and further the complainant was compelled by the opposite party to pay  a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards affidavit charges and  however this complainant never signed in any affidavit to get the registration certificate  and it is the 2^nd opposite party who had fraudulently fabricated the affidavit and put her signature is unfair trade practice and that caused mental agony to her.

          11. The complainant alleged deficiency only against the 2^nd opposite party that he had collected excessive amount towards registration charges. The collection of amount or amount collected by the 2^nd opposite party has no connection with the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party.  Therefore we hold that the 1^st and 3^rd opposite party have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant.

          12. The complainant alleges that there is no proper response from the 2^nd opposite party at the time of booking or previously or after cannot be taken as deficiency on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. However, the 2^nd opposite party subsequently fabricated the affidavit and put the complainant signature without the knowledge of the complainant and also collected a sum of Rs.1,500/- on 25.03.2015.

          13. According to the complainant Ex.A12 is the affidavit fraudulently fabricated by the 2^nd opposite party. Further she alleged that she never signed in the said affidavit and therefore it is fabricated document. The complainant/ C.Durgadevi signature is available in the said affidavit. The complainant signature is available in each page of the complaint as well as in her proof affidavit. In all the signatures of the complainant in the complaint as well as proof affidavit she used to put her initial ‘C’ only in the last of her signature and before such initial she also used to put a dot. However, the said dot was found in Ex.A12 affidavit signature that only after her signature. Further her signatures in the complaint and proof affidavit, the letters D & g are all found in one style with that of the signature found in Ex.A12. Further in her signature the letter ‘i’ has a dot above and where as the said dot was not found in the letter ‘i’ in Ex.A12. Therefore it is primacie establishes that the complainant alleged signature found in Ex.A12 is different from that of her signature found in complaint and her proof affidavit. Therefore as contended by the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party only fabricated Ex.A12 affidavit fraudulently is accepted and therefore the complainant proved that the 2^nd opposite party committed unfair trade practice is accepted.

          14. Admittedly the 2^nd opposite party collected a sum of Rs.83,428/- towards registration and road tax etc. The RTO issued Ex.A10 receipt for an amount of Rs.63,756/- for the charges levied by them. Since RTO receipt issued for a lesser amount  incurred for registration and hence  she contacted the 2^nd opposite party to refund the excess amount collected from her. Ex.A16 is the letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant. In the said letter the 2^nd opposite party admits that he had collected a sum of Rs. 80,428/- towards registration road tax and handling charges. He further said in that letter cost incurred for registration is 65,306/-. However what is handling charge has not been stated by the 2^nd opposite party in any of his documents. Therefore after demand from the complainant, he had refunded a sum of Rs.15,818/- out of the amount collected from the complainant. When the 2^nd opposite party had now refunded the said amount, he ought not have collected the said amount   and subsequently on demand from the complainant had refunded the amount of Rs.15,818/- proves that the 2^nd opposite party  committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore it is held that the 2^nd opposite party committed unfair trade practice in collecting excess amount towards registration charges and also by forging the signature of the complainant in Ex.A12 affidavit.

15. POINT NO:2

          As the 2^nd opposite party committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to the complainant by forging the signature of the complainant and also collecting excess amount towards registration charges, further establishes that the 2^nd opposite party is not carrying on  his business in a fair manner. Forging the signature of the customer is very serious in nature. He should have called the complainant any time and got her signature in the affidavit, Ex.A12. Therefore for such a serious unfair trade practice to teach a lesson to the dealer, it would be appropriate to order to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  towards  compensation to the complainant would meet ends of justice. Further the complainant is also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the 1^st  & 3^rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 2^nd Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The compliant in respect of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd  day of September 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 03.02.2015                   Copy to the preliminary information sheet

Ex.A2 dated 03.02.2015                   Copy of the docket book (N0.1850)

Ex.A3 dated 11.02.2015                   Copy of receipt of the paid amount of Rs.10,000/-

Ex.A4 dated 18.02.2015                   Copy of the bill for the paid amount of

                                                        Rs.2,77,500/- (No:5351)

 

Ex.A5 dated 18.02.2015                   Copy of the receipt for the paid amount of

                                                        2,77,500/-

 

Ex.A6 dated 19.02.2015                   Copy of the Tax/vehicle invoice

Ex.A7 dated 20.02.2015                   Copy of the challan No.N8760190

Ex.A8 dated 24.02.2015                   copy of the Statement of account

Ex.A9 dated 24.02.2015                   Copy of the delivery challan

Ex.A10 dated 24.02.2015                 Copy of the challan No.N8738744

Ex.A11 dated 24.02.2015                 Copy of the challan No:N8738745

Ex.A12 dated 25.02.2015                 Copy of the fraudulently fabricated affidavit

Ex.A13 dated 01.04.2015                 Copy of the complaint

Ex.A14 dated 01.04.2015                 Copy of the memo

Ex.A15 dated NIL                             News report published in Times of India

Ex.A16 dated 07.04.2015                 Copy of the letter stating the refund of overcharged

                                                         Amount

 

Ex.A17 dated 07.07.2015                 Copy of the advocate notice &  AD Cards

 

Ex.A18 dated 24.07.2015                 Copy of the reply notice

 

Ex.A19 dated 10.08.2015	Copy of the rejoinder notice

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd & 3^rd OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                                …. NIL……

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT