BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.419 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          12.06.2014

                                                Date of Decision:            22.06.2015

Amardeep Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, # 313, Ahluwalia Street, Ward No.10, Kurali, District Mohali.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Padam Motors Metro Towers, Sec.58, Shahi Majra, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Managing Director.

2.     Renault India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Siplot Indl. Estate, Mattur (Post) Sriperumbuder Kancherpuran, Tamilnadu 602105 through its Managing Director.

3.     Renault Panchkula, Tricity Panchkula, 363, Indl. Area, Ph-II, Panchkula (Haryana) through its Managing Director.

4.     State Bank of India, Bus Stand Kurali, District Mohali through its Manager.

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Ashok Verma, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Amit Gupta, counsel for OP Nos.1 and 3.

Shri H.S. Bedi, counsel for OP No.2

Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj, counsel for OP No.4.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’):

(a)    to change all the tyres of car with new tyres, brake drum or change the car with new car.

(b)    to refund Rs.1,00,000/-  taken in excess regarding value of the car and registration cover of the car.

(c)    to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment.

(d)    to pay Rs.60,000/- spent for hiring taxi from March 2014 till change of part or change of car.

(e)    to pay Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation.

                The case of the complainant is that OP No.1 is authorized distributor of vehicles manufactured by OP No.2 and OP No.3 is the workshop of OP Nos.1 and 2. The complainant intended to purchase a car. OP No.1 offered the price of the Pulse diesel car manufactured in December 2013 as Rs.6,20,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.1,87,600/- to OP No.1 in cash vide receipt dated 17.02.2014 and the remaining amount was to be got financed from OP No.4. As per the instructions of Transport Department Punjab, temporary number and permanent registration number of the vehicles are to be issued by the authorized dealers.  OP No.1 had not give any bill or invoice, form No.22 and 23 to the complainant at the time of delivery on the ground that it will submit the same with District Transport Officer, Mohali and would get the RC prepared. OP No.1 only provided challan at the time of delivery in which value of the car was mentioned as per billing. OP No.1 also took Rs.2,600/- from the complainant for issuance of temporary registration certificate vide receipt dated 07.03.2014. OP No.1 also taken Rs.34,130/- from the complainant towards registration of the vehicle but as per the information downloaded from the internet, it was revealed that the total payment towards registration is Rs.32,439/-.  From the R.C. of the vehicle, the complainant found that the month and year of manufacturing of the vehicle was mentioned as June, 2013 whereas at the time of delivery, OP No.1 informed that the car is manufactured in December, 2013. In the insurance cover of the car the value of the car is mentioned as Rs.5,97,600/- whereas OP No.1 has taken Rs.1,87,600/- in cash and loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been given by the bank.  OP No.1 assured that it would refund the excess amount, if any.  It is further pleaded in the complaint that after 15 days of delivery of the car, the drum started raising noise and there were bubbles in the tyres of the car.  The complainant took the car to OP No.1 but it failed to remove the defects. Due to manufacturing defect in the car the complainant is unable to use the vehicle. In the absence of the non functioning of the car the complainant has to use taxi for transportation.  Thus with these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             After the admission of the complaint, the notices were issued to the OPs, who put in its appearance before the Forum through their counsel.   OP Nos.1 and 3 in the joint written statement have pleaded  in the preliminary objections that the complaint is false and fabricated.  The complainant is trying to hoodwink the process of law by putting a forged and fabricated receipt No.832 dated 17.02.2014. In fact the receipt No.832 was issued on the name of Mrs. Manjeet Kaur for a sum of Rs.2,80,252/-.  The complainant booked the car with OP No.1 on 16.02.2014 by paying Rs.5,000/- vide receipt dated 16.02.2014. The car was delivered to the complainant on 17.02.2014 and at that time he was informed about manufacturing of the car in Jun, 2013 for which a cash discount of Rs.90,000/- was offered to which the complainant agreed without any hesitation.  A sum of Rs.6,18,370/- was received from the complainant. A sum of Rs.34,130/- was received from the complainant for registration certificate of the car and an amount of Rs.1778/- is still outstanding towards the complainant.  The complainant was informed that the problem of bubbles in the tyres of the car was not covered under warranty as the same was due to external impact and the problem could be resolved on payment of requisite charges. Rs.3799/- was charged from the complainant on 02.05.2014 for spare parts including oil, oil filters etc.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, OP Nos.1 to 3 have sought dismissal of the complainant.

3.             OP No.2 in the written statement has pleaded that being manufacturer its relationship with OP No.1 who is dealer is on principal to principal basis. The OP No.2 cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  On merits, it is pleaded that the tyre of the car was inspected by the Service Engineer and found that the damage to the tyre had occurred due to external impact and as such there being no manufacturing defect, OP No.2 refused to replace under warranty. Denying any manufacturing defect in the car, the OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.             OP No.4 has pleaded in the separate written statement that there is no deficiency in service on the part of it.  Its role was only to sanction a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for the purchase of the car.  The other averments made in the complaint have been denied for want of knowledge. It too has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

5.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-11.

6.             To rebut the allegations of the complainant,  OP No.1 and 3 tendered the affidavits of Dheeraj Ghai Ex.OP-1/1 and  Ex.OP-1/2 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-6 and Ex.OP-1/A.

7.             Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Kota Rajasekar, their Senior Manager Ex.OP-2/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-2.

8.             Evidence of OP No.4 consists of affidavit of Madhu, its Branch Head Ex.OP-4/1.

9.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the evidence and written arguments produced by them.

10.           The main issue involved in the complaint is regarding (a) over charging the cost of the car (b) over charging the temporary registration charges (c) wrong delivery of car manufactured in June, 2013 against the promised car manufactured in December, 2013 (d) manufacturing defect in the car as within 15 days from the date of purchase the vehicle started giving noise in drum brakes and bubbles appeared in the tyres (v) the defects not removed free of costs when the vehicle was under warranty.

11.           It will be appropriate to appreciate the complaint and evidence of the parties on the basis of issues raised above. The first issue is regarding over charging of value of car. As per the complainant he has paid a total sum of Rs.6,87,600/- to the OP No.1 for purchase of Pulse Diesel car out of which the cost of the car as per complainant is Rs.6,20,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,87,600/- in cash vide receipt No.832 dated 17.02.2014 Ex.C-1 and the remaining amount of Rs.5.00 lacs he has got it financed from OP No.4.The factum of finance is admitted by OP No.4.  Thus, in all as per complainant against the total price of car i.e. Rs.6,20,000/- he has paid a sum of Rs.6,87,600/- to the OP No.1. Thus, as per complainant the OP No.1 has charged excess amount of Rs.67,600/- in excess. The charging of said excess amount has been denied by OP No.1 on the ground that  receipt No.832 dated 17.02.2014 showing the payment of amount of Rs.1,87,600/- is never issued by OP No.1.  In fact the OP No.1 has alleged that the receipt produced as Ex.C-1 by the complainant is a false and fabricated document. As per OP No.1 the said receipt No.832 dated 17.02.2014 is issued by it in favour of another customer i.e. one Smt. Manjit Kaur wife of Shri Harinderpal Singh for a sum of Rs.2,80,252/-. In order to disprove the claim of the complainant regarding payment of Rs.1,87,600/- by cash vide receipt Ex.C-1, OP No.1 has drawn our attention to the actual receipt No.832 dated 17.02.2014 issued in favour of Smt. Manjit Kaur wife of Shri Harinderpal Singh and is the same is Ex.OP-1/A and the receipt. We have perused both Ex.C-1 and Ex.OP-1/A.  It seems to be a genuine document at the first instance as the same is seems to have been issued by OP No.1 as the receipt depicts the name and address of OP No.1 and other details like hypothecation, name and address of the complainant and details of the car etc. which prima facie seems to be the same as disclosed by the complainant in his complaint. But in order to resolve the controversy and prove the veracity of this document the complainant was given an opportunity to show the original receipt as he has produced the photocopy of the same in evidence.  The complainant put the burden on OP No.4 to show the original receipt because as per the complainant the original receipt was submitted by him with OP No.4 at the time of availing the loan for vehicle in question. OP No.4 vide separate affidavit of the Branch Manager denied having in their possession original receipt No.832 dated 17.02.2014. Thus, the complainant has failed to show the original receipt No.832 dated 17.02.2014 for Rs.1,87,600/- having been issued by OP No.1. Therefore, the veracity of this document is not proved by the complainant. Hence, it is not proved that the complainant has made payment of Rs.1,87,600/- vide disputed receipt Ex.C-1.  On the other hand OP No.1 and 3 in their written reply have given the complete breakup of the payment of Rs.6,18,370 received from the complainant as per details given below;

12.           In fact the complainant has paid Rs.1,778/- less than the agreed amount of Rs.6,20,148/- being the cost of the vehicle. There is no rebuttal evidence by the complainant in this regard.  Thus, the complainant has failed to prove the receipt of excess amount of Rs.67,600/- by OP No.1.

13.           The next issue is regarding charging of excess amount for registration certificate of the car. As per the complainant he has paid Rs.34,130/- to OP No.1 for registration of the car. As per complainant he has taken the information of District Transport Officer, Mohali site that against his car OP No.1 has deposited Rs.32,439/- as registration charges and has, therefore, charged Rs. 1791/- in excess for permanent registration certificate and additional amount of Rs.2600/- vide Ex.C-3 for temporary registration number.  As per the complainant, the OP No.1 is not entitled to charge any amount for temporary registration and the said amount has been charged against the rules of the Transport Department. The complainant has not produced any document to show the rules prohibiting the OP No.1 to charge for temporary number of the vehicle. On the other hand OP No.1 has denied having received Rs.2600/- against receipt dated 07.03.2014 from the complainant on account of temporary number.  In fact the said amount has been charged from the complainant against bill No.2935 i.e. Ex.Op-5 on account of some material used in the car during the first free service and the said amount was chargeable from the complainant.  So far as charging of excess amount of Rs.1,791/- on account of permanent registration certificate is concerned, as per OP No.1 no excess amount has been charged against the deposited amount of Rs.34,130/- vide receipt dated 20.03.2014 Ex.C-4. The OP No.1 has deposited Rs.32,439/- with the concerned department for registration of the vehicle and the balance amount of Rs.1791/- has been accounted for against the outstanding amount of Rs.1778/- being deficient deposit from the cost of the vehicle. Rs.500/- has been accounted for as processing fee and in fact the complainant is still defaulter in making balance payment of Rs.617/- which the OP No.1 is not pressing at the moment. In fact the OP No.1 has given the complete details of the amount chargeable and the amount received from the complainant against the sale of the vehicle which is as follows:

14.            We are in full agreement with OP No.1 as he has accounted for every penny received from the complainant on account of permanent registration charges.  There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the complainant. Thus, on this account we do not find anything amiss on the part of OP No.1.

15.           The next question is regarding alleged delivery of different model of car against the promised model. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of purchase of the vehicle he was promised the delivery of vehicle having manufactured in December, 2013 whereas in the R.C. the manufacturing month of the vehicle has been shown as June, 2013. Thus, as per the complainant OP No.1 has indulged into unfair trade practice by delivering a different car manufactured in June 2013 than the promised one manufactured in December, 2013.  The allegation of delivery of wrong car has been denied by OP No.1 in the reply by way of affidavit.  As per OP No.1 the original price of the new car manufactured in June, 2013 was Rs.7,10,148/- and the complainant has agreed to purchase the same after he was offered a discount of Rs.90,000/- . Therefore, the complainant after his consent has agreed to purchase the car at the discounted rate of Rs.6,20,148/-.  The complainant has been charged Rs.6,20,148/- after giving the discount of Rs.90,000/- besides the said price, the complainant has also paid insurance amount and logistic and Accessional pack. In fact on the day, when the complainant has purchased the vehicle the price of vehicular was Rs.6,87,600/- the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he was promised the sale of car manufactured in December, 2013 whereas the OP No.1 has proved from the statement of account the amount charged i.e. Rs.6,20,148/- against the price  Rs.7,10,148/- of the vehicle  manufactured in June, 2013 and this factum of  manufacturing in June, 2013 is correctly mentioned in the R.C. of the vehicle on the basis of sale certificate Ex.OP-6 showing June, 2013 against the column year of manufacturing. Therefore, the grievance of the complainant stands not proved against the OP No.1.

16.           Regarding manufacturing defect, the grievance of the complainant is that within 15 days from the date of purchase the vehicle started giving noise in drum brakes and bubbles appeared in the tyres. In this regard, OP No.1 has admitted having received the vehicle for removal of defects pointed out by the complainant vide job card dated 02.05.2014 Ex.OP-4. The defects pointed out by the complainant regarding noise from the drum brake and appearance of bubbles in the tyres have been duly taken care of as an after sale service by the OP No.1. The defects pointed out by the complainant are not covered under warranty and, therefore, the same have been removed after charging the requisite amount from the complainant.  OP No.2 being the manufacturer have denied the manufacturing defect in its written statement by way of affidavit of Senior Manager (Finance) of the OP No.2. OP No.2 has denied any manufacturing and so far any defect pointed out in the tyres in question are concerned, the service engineer of OP No.3 has inspected the vehicle and found that the defect occurred in the tyre is due to external impact and not  any manufacturing defect. In order to support his contention OP No.2 has relied upon the concerned investigation report submitted alongwith written arguments showing that the tyres are not being maintained as per manufactures recommendations and the effected tyres have covered 90% of the designed life as per the tread wear observation.  Further no technical manufacturing defect is observed on the tyres apart from the affected area. The complainant has not produced any expert opinion regarding the manufacturing defect. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the grievance of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect. 

17.           So far as the role of OP No.4 is concerned, the complainant being a loanee has availed the financial assistance from OP No.4 for purchase of the vehicle and OP No.4 has admitted having given the loan of Rs.5.00 lacs to the complainant for purchase of vehicle from OP No.1. The vehicle is under hypothecation with OP No.4. The complainant has not sought any relief against OP No.4.

18.           Since the complainant has failed to prove the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of all the four issues dealt separately above, the complaint being devoid of hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

June 22, 2015.    

                                                                    (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                (Amrinder Singh)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member