Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/639/2010

Bhanwar Singh S/o Punnu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pandit Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V.P.S.Sidhu

24 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 639 of  2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 7.7.2010.

                                                                                              Date of decision: 24.6.2015

Bhanwar Singh son of Sh. Punnu Ram, resident of H. No. 1679, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. M/s Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Gobind Puri, Bye Pass Road, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.  
2. Maruti Suzuki Indian Ltd., Plot No.1, Phase-III-A, I.M.T. Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Managing Director/authorized Signatory.   

                                                     …Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C. SHARMA, MEMBER

           

Present: Sh. V.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Rajiv Chawla, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

              Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Bhanwar Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 32,245/- which they have excessive charged alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of purchase of car till its realization and further to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony, physically harassment and Rs. 11000/- on account of cost of proceedings.

2.                     Brief facts of the present case as alleged are that complainant was willing to purchase a car make A-Star LXI of Maruti Suzuki India Limited and for this purpose, he approached to OP No.1, upon which official of OP No.1 told that the said car is of Rs. 3,50,214/- and this cost was also displayed in show room at that time. It has been further stated that official of OP No.1 also assured to the complainant that he will be entitled to get cash discount of Rs. 15100/- alongwith discount of Rs. 2000/- on account of profession and free accessories to the tune of Rs. 3100/-. On this, complainant booked his car with the OP No.1 and paid a sum of Rs. 5000/- in cash as booking money. Thereafter, when the complainant went on 4.2.2010 for taking delivery of car, then OP No.1 further charged a sum of Rs. 3,51,700/- from the complainant. In this way, OP No.1 charged a total sum of Rs. 3,56,700/- ( Rs. 3,51,700+ Rs. 5000/- = 3,56,700/-) from the complainant.. It has been further alleged by the complainant that OP No.1 did not issue the sale invoice on that day and thereafter when on 13.2.2010 OP No.1 issued sale invoice of car to the complainant, then he was stunned to note that the OP No.1 has charged excess amount of Rs. 13255/- from the complainant as the cost of car has been shown as Rs. 3,43,445/- in sale invoice Annexure R-2. However, the said amount of Rs. 13255/- has not been refunded to the complainant.

3.                     It has been further stated that OP No.1 gave professional discount of Rs. 2000/- and in place of discount of Rs. 3100/- gave accessories to the complainant but they did not deduct or adjust the amount of Rs. 15100/- on account of cash discount as per their previous commitment, so the said amount of Rs. 15100/- is recoverable from the OP No.1. It has been further stated that OP No.1 has charged the cost of extended warranty of Rs. 1890/- and insurance charges of Rs. 10913/- illegally, whereas it was promised that extended warranty and insurance of car will be provided free of costs. It is further stated that OP No.1 has charged excess amount of Rs. 2000/- on account of insurance of the car. In this way an amount of Rs. 32245/- has been charged in excess by the OP No.1 from the complainant and the OP No.1 has not refunded this amount, it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Lastly prayed that necessary directions be issued to refund the excess amount of Rs. 32245/- with interest and to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

4.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1, while filing the written statement, took some preliminary objections such as no locus standi, maintainability, concealment of true and material facts, stopped by his own act and conduct and cause of action and on merit, it has been stated in para No.3 of complaint that the cost of car in question was Rs. 3,56,700/- and sufficient discount was given to the complainant. In fact at the time of delivery of the car, the complainant obtained free insurance, Teflon coating, mud flap, body cover and temporary number in the shape of cash discount and the complainant was fully satisfied and except, these schemes, there was no other scheme available to the consumer. Lastly prayed that complaint filed by the complainant being false and frivolous, deservers dismissal.

5.                     OP No.2 while filing the written statement took some preliminary objections such as complainant is not a consumer of OP No.2, complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the parties and is not maintainable against OP No.2, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2 against the complainant and on merit, it has been stated that OP No.1 have a separate and independent legal entity to carry on its business for sale and after sale service under its separate Memorandum and Articles of Association. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.2. The complainant has impleaded OP No.2 to obtain undue gains.  It has been further stated that complainant has booked the said car after having mutually settled the terms and conditions of the sale with the OP No.1. The complainant has not paid any amount to the OP No.2 towards the price of vehicle in question. The sale transaction has taken place between the complainant and OP No.1. It has been further stated that the relationship between OP No.2 and its dealer including OP No.1 are based on principal to principal and is governed by the dealership agreement. Lastly prayed that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2 and other allegations are totally false and manipulated. Hence, the complaint is deserves dismissal against OP No.2.

6.                     To prove his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 filed affidavit of Sh. Jitender Sharma, M.D. of OP No.1 as Annexure RX and documents as Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.  Counsel for OP No.2 also filed affidavit of Sh. R.K.Sharma Supervisor as Annexure R2/X and documents as Annexures R2/1 to Annexure R2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.  The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance, whereas the counsel for OPs reiterated the averments made in their reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased A-Star LXI Maruti Car from OP No.1 vide sale invoice No. VSL 09001128 dated 13.2.2010. The only plea of the complainant is that OP No.1 has not given a cash discount of Rs. 15100/- and excess amount of Rs. 13255/- has not been refunded to the complainant and further have illegally charged Rs. 1890/- on account of extended warranty an excess amount of Rs. 2000/- on account of insurance of the car has also been charged from the complainant. It has been further alleged that OP No.1 has charged the insurance amount whereas OP No.1 previously assured to the complainant that they will not charge the same.

9.                     On the other hand, stand of the OP No.1 is that a sum of Rs. 6016/- has been given on account of cash discount and free accessories to the tune of Rs. 10231/- has also been given free of costs as per Annexure R-3 to the complainant. It has been further stated that OP No.1 has refunded the excess amount of Rs. 13255/- as mentioned in invoice No. VSL 9001128 (Annexure R-2) by way of insurance of the car to the tune of Rs. 10913/- and extended warranty of Rs. 1890/- and remaining amount of Rs. 430/- on account of free accessories as per invoice Annexure R-3.  As the total benefits of Rs. 16247/- ( 6016+10231= 16247) has been given to the complainant and amount of Rs. 13225/- ( Rs. 10913+1890+430= 13238/-) has been refunded, hence, there is no merit in the complaint and deserves dismissal.  

10.                   After going through the above noted contention of the parties we are of the view that the contention of the complainant is not tenable in respect of cash discount of Rs. 15100/- and extended warranty of Rs. 1890/- and further to the amount of Rs. 2000/- on account of excess charge of insurance of car because the complainant has totally failed to file any documentary evidence for the entitlement of the same. The arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant on these claims have no force to our mind.

 11.                   The only question that remains is whether the excess amount of Rs. 13255/- has been refunded to the complainant or not? To decide this question, it is much necessary to go through the written statement filed by OP No.1 and the contents of para No.3 of the reply on merit, which is reproduced here for ready reference:

“ That para No.3 of the complaint is wrong as alleged and hence denied. The cost of the vehicle in question is Rs. 3,56,700/-. Rest of para is also wrong as alleged and hence denied. Sufficient discount was given to the complainant. In fact at the time of delivery of the car, the complainant obtained free insurance, Teflon Coating, Mud flap, body cover, temporary number in the shape of cash discount and the complainant was fully satisfied and except these schemes, there was no other scheme available to the customer.”

12.                   After going through the contents of this para No.3 of the reply filed by OP No.1, it is evident that OP No.1 has stated that the cost of vehicle in question is Rs. 3,56,700/- and sufficient discount was given to the complainant. It has been specifically mentioned that at the time of delivery of the car, the complainant obtained free insurance, Teflon coating, Mud Flap, Body Cover and Temporary number etc. From the plane reading of this para, it is clear that insurance of car was free of costs and OP No.1 was not entitled to get the amount of Rs. 10913 on account of insurance of the car whereas as per their stand during the course of arguments, an amount of Rs. 13255/- has been adjusted against the cost of insurance of car, extended warranty and balance amount of accessories invoice. It is not disputed that rest accessories mentioned in Annexure R-3 has been given free of cost but OP No.1 failed to provide free of insurance of car amounting to Rs. 10913/-. The plea of the OP No.1 is contradictory to its reply.

13.                    Hence, we are of the view that OP No.1 has charged illegally an amount of Rs. 10913/- on account of insurance from the complainant it amounts to unfair trade  practice on the part of OP No.1. So, we have no option except to allow the present complaint  qua OP No.1 only and OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount of insurance premium i.e. Rs. 10913/- and further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs. 1000/- on account of litigation expenses. The above noted directions be complied within a period of 30 days otherwise complainant will be entitled to recover the awarded amount alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization.   Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open court. 24.6.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                               

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA  )

                                                                                                MEMBER