Complaint No: 235 of 2019.
Date of Institution: 16.07.2019.
Date of order: 09.02.2024.
Ranjit Singh Son of Tarlok Singh, resident of Village Jaura Singha, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur.
…..........Complainant.
VERSUS
Novelty Hyundai B.G. International Pvt. Ltd., V.P.O. Hardo Jhande, Amritsar – Pathankot Road, Batala District Gurdaspur, through its Manager.
….Opposite party.
Complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Raman Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Sh.Sachin Mahajan, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Ranjit Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Novelty Hyundai (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is an Ex-Serviceman. He is a retired Naik from Indian Army, having Army No. 15138506K. The complainant retired from Army on dated 31.07.2016. The complainant is duly entitled for canteen facilities. It is pleaded that the opposite party is Authorized Sales and service Dealership of Hyundai Cars. The opposite party firm is also registered with Canteen Stores Department and having its UID Number. It is further pleaded that the complainant approached for the purchase of Hyundai Car make Creta 1.4 CRDI (S) (White) in February 2019 through CSD depot Pathankot. The opposite party advised the complainant to pay Rs.4,000/- as booking amount and told him that he himself will process the case with CSD depot. In this regard, the opposite party received photo copies of Identify Card, Smart Card, Discharge Book, copy of PPO, PAN Card, Driving License, Aadhaar Card and applicant / indent form etc. duly signed from the complainant and also obtained signatures of the complainant on some blank forms / papers. It is further pleaded that the opposite party asked to the complainant to deposit Rs.3 Lacs on dated 25.02.2019 which the complainant paid through cheque No. 891964 on the above mentioned date. The opposite party himself also got the above mentioned vehicle financed and sanctioned loan of Rs.8,98,761/- for the remaining payment through HDFC Bank Branch Batala and received the same directly. It is further pleaded that the opposite party disclosed total price of the above mentioned vehicle through CSD depot to the tune of Rs.11,89,751/- including GST, expenses for preparation of R.C and insurance. The opposite party also delivered possession of the vehicle to the complainant on dated 28.02.2019 bearing Engine No.D4FCKM736797 and Chassis No. MALC281RLKM537333 colour white after receiving full payment of the vehicle and Insurance policy etc. as mentioned above. It is further pleaded that opposite party handed over invoice and original Insurance policy of the above mentioned vehicle to the complainant on dated 28.02.2019. It is further pleaded that a few days back, when the complainant approached the opposite party for collection of R.C from the opposite party, the opposite party refused to hand over R.C to the complainant on the ground that due to change of policy by the Govt. of India from 01.06.2019, case of the complainant could not be passed for supply of vehicle through CSD depot, hence the opposite party asked the complainant to make payment of remaining amount of Rs.1,44,000/- i.e. difference between the CSD Rates and general Rates. This act on the part of the opposite party is totally illegal, null and void, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, because the complainant had paid full price of the vehicle after completing all the formalities on dated 28.02.2019 and only thereafter vehicle was delivered to the complainant. Hence, in case there is any change in the policy by the Govt. of India from 01.06.2019 is not applicable on the complainant and in case if there is any kind of delay in processing the case, the same is on the part of the opposite party and not on the part of the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay single penny to the opposite party. It is further pleaded that opposite party is duty bond to hand over original R.C of the vehicle to the complainant. It is further pleaded that till today the opposite party has not handed over Registration Certificate (R.C) of the above mentioned vehicle to the complainant. Although the complainant had been approaching the opposite party time and again and requesting for the delivery of R.C., but the opposite party refused to hand over R.C without payment of Rs.1,44,000/-. It is further pleaded that the opposite party is liable to hand over R.C. of the above said vehicle to the complainant, as the complainant had paid huge money for this purpose to him at the time of purchasing the above said vehicle. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to handover R.C. of the above mentioned vehicle to the complainant immediately. The opposite party may also be restrained from receiving the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- from the complainant illegally & forcibly. It is further prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant on account mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- may also be awarded in favour of the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that at the very outset the answering opposite party denies all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint filed by the complainant except to the extent it is expressly admitted therein. The non-traversal of any paragraph should be read as categorical denial. It is pleaded that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The complaint has been filed on the basis of wrong facts and evidence. The complaint is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant against answering opposite party to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue advantage from the answering opposite party. There is no deficiency in service, malpractice of any kind as alleged in the complaint on behalf of the answering opposite party and the complainant has created a false story in his complaint to mislead this Hon'ble Commission by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the present case and to get undue benefit from the answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that the fact of matter is that, the complainant himself never visited the answering opposite party for purchase of the car. It is Smt. Ranjit Kaur, who is wife of the complainant had visited to showroom of the opposite party alongwith her son or relative and had showed desire to purchase the car through CSD in the name of her husband. As per desire of the wife of the complainant, order form to purchase car Creta was prepared in the name of the complainant i.e. Ranjit Singh on dated 28.02.2019, but the complainant Ranjit Singh personally was not present at that time and as such, order form was signed by his wife Ranjit Kaur. It is further pleaded that at the time of purchase of the car, it was informed to the answering opposite party by wife of the complainant that her husband is in Army, as such, they will purchase the car through CSD and she had shown the Army ID Card of her husband. As per request of the wife of the complainant, order form was issued in the name of the complainant and since, wife of the complainant wants to get delivery of the car on same day i.e. on dated 28.02.2019, accordingly, Invoice of the car of dated 28.02.2019 was issued in the name of the husband of the complainant and amount of the car in invoice was shown as actual amount of the car and it was informed to wife of the complainant that in case, their CSD file will be accepted, the answering opposite party will return back the excess amount paid by them to the opposite party, for which, wife of the complainant had agreed and as such, invoice at market price of the car was issued in the name of the complainant. It is further pleaded that at the time of booking of the car and issuance of the order form and invoice, amount of Rs.3,04,000/- was received from the wife of the complainant, which was transferred by one Manjinder Singh in account of the answering opposite party. Receipt of advance booking amount of the car was issued in the name of the complainant, but same was signed by the wife of the complainant. Accordingly, after receiving part payment of the car, tax invoice was issued and delivery of the car was also handed over to Smt. Ranjit Kaur on dated 01.03.2019 duly signed by her on gate pass dated 28.02.2019. It is further pleaded that remaining amount of the car was to be paid by financer of the car, which was later on received by the answering opposite party from HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs.8,87,501/- on dated 08.03.2019. It is further pleaded that it was upon the complainant to provide Letter of Sale (LOS) from the CSD regarding purchase of the car at CSD rate, but after passage of time, no such LOS was provided by the complainant and he never visited or approached the answering opposite party. Rather, official of the opposite party had approached the wife of the complainant at address mentioned and also contacted telephonically and asked for LOS or to deposit the remaining amount of the car price and expenditure incurred on it, but it was informed to the answering opposite party by the complainant and his wife that his application to purchase the car through CSD is still under consideration. It is further pleaded that in the month of July 2019, the complainant visited showroom of the answering opposite party and had asked for R.C. of the car and then opposite party had asked for LOS from the complainant and then it was informed by the complainant to the opposite party that his application has been rejected by the CSD due to rank system and then opposite party had asked for remaining balance amount of the car which includes price of the car, insurance charges, R.C. charges and other Misc. expenditure, but the complainant refused to deposit the outstanding amount of the car to the opposite party, rather threatened that car is in his possession and he will get R.C. of the car through Court and will not pay any amount to the answering opposite party and now with malafide intention and on the basis of false evidence and concocted story, present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get undue benefit from the answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that it has been alleged by the complainant in the present case that he had deposited all the documents and signed the same with the answering opposite party and it was the duty of the opposite party to get LOS from the CSD, this is wrong facts pleaded by the complainant to create false evidence in his favour. No such documents of proof and signed documents were ever provided by the complainant to the answering opposite party. It is further pleaded that as per rules of the CSD to purchase the car through CSD, it is the army person himself, who has to apply to avail such benefit under CSD as per rank in the Army and then accordingly, CSD approve the case of the concerned person and issue LOS in favour of the person who applied for the same, but in the present case, the complainant himself visited showroom of the answering opposite party in the month of July 2019 and prior to that all the documents regarding purchase and delivery of the car was done by wife of the complainant. As such, the present complaint being based on wrong facts is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on part of the answering opposite party as alleged in the present complaint. It is further pleaded that false complaint has been filed by the complainant. There is no fault, malpractice on part of the answering opposite party. The complainant is guilty of his own acts and conducts. He himself has failed to get approval from the CSD to purchase the car at discounted price and has failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,41,784/- as such, there is no fault on the part of the answering opposite party.
On merits, the opposite party has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ranjit Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kakaria, (Authorized Signatory, M/s. B.G. International, Batala) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-9 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by the complainant, but not filed by the opposite party.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is an Ex-Serviceman and had approached the opposite party for purchase of Creta Car through CSD Pathankot. It is further argued that opposite party had received Rs.4000/- as booking amount and received all the documents and thereafter received further amount of Rs.3 Lakhs on 25.02.2019 and remaining amount was got financed. It is further argued that opposite party had disclosed the price of the car through CSD as Rs.11,89,751/- including GST, expenses of R.C. and insurance and car was delivered to the complainant. It is further argued that after few days complainant had visited the opposite party for collection of R.C. but opposite party refused to hand over the R.C. on the ground that due to change of policy by the govt. of India from 01.06.2019 case of the complainant could not be passed for supply of vehicle through CSD and demanded more amount of Rs.1,44,000/- from the complainant as difference of price. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and opposite party has no right to claim the further amount and is liable to pay damages to the complainant alongwith R.C. of the vehicle.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that complainant never visited the opposite party for the purchase of the car rather it was wife of the complainant who visited the opposite party and had shown desire to purchase the car through CSD and it was wife of the complainant who signed all the documents. It is further argued that the car was delivered to the wife complainant and it was informed to the wife of the complainant that in case CSD file will be accepted the opposite party will return back excess amount paid by them to the opposite party for which wife of the complainant agreed and accordingly invoice at the market price of the car was issued in the name of the complainant. It is further argued that the opposite party had asked for Letter of Sale (LOS) from the complainant but the complainant failed to supply LOS from the CSD and wrongly obtained benefit of Rs.1,41,784/- and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
11. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of policy of insurance Ex.C2, copy of passbook Ex.C3, copy of statement of account Ex.C4, copy of canteen smart card Ex.C5, copy of service book Ex.C6, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C7, copy of pan card Ex.C8, copy of driving license Ex.C9, copy of P.P.O. Ex.C10 whereas opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Rajesh Kakaria Ex.OP-1, copy of authority letter Ex.OP-2, copy of order form Ex.OP-3, copy of tax invoice Ex.OP-4, copy of order booking form Ex.OP-5 and Ex.OP-6, copy of guidelines for purchase of vehicle from CSD Ex.OP-7, copy of receipt Ex.OP-8 and copy of ledger account Ex.OP-9.
12. It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased one Creta Car from the opposite party. It is further admitted fact that complainant had approached the opposite party for purchase of car through CSD and there is a dispute regarding difference of price which is being claimed by the opposite party from the complainant.
13. Perusal of file shows that opposite party has placed on record guidelines Ex.OP-7 for purchase of four wheeler from CSD as per which at page No.2 under the misc. points the demand draft should be drawn in favour of Canteen Stores Department, Public Fund Account (Main) payable at the station of CSD Depot. Meaning thereby that it is proved on record that the demand draft in respect of price of the car was required to be got prepared in the name of CSD but in the present case admittedly opposite party received payment Rs.3,04,000/- from the complainant through bank at the time of booking. We are unable to understand that opposite party is authorized dealer of one of the largest company manufacturing cars and as to how they flouted all the rules and regulations for purchase of car through CSD particularly instructions mentioned in Ex.OP-7. We are of view that if there is some dispute regarding non-payment of difference of price in that case the opposite is at liberty to recover the said amount from the complainant by adopting legal course admissible under law. However, in no case opposite party can withheld the R.C. of the car, as R.C. of the car is required to be sent by the concerned R.T.O. directly to the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, with holding of the R.C. by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, since during the course of arguments it is admitted by the counsel for the complainant that complainant has received the original RC one month back during the pendency of the present compliant as such relief qua RC has become infructuous.
14. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment for withholding the RC of the car including cost of litigation.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 09, 2024 Member.
*YP*
