Haryana

Ambala

CC/19/2018

Malkiat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pasco Motors - Opp.Party(s)

19 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.:  19 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   11.01.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :   19.08.2019.

 

Malkiat Singh s/o Shri Nar Singh, aged about 32 years, r/o village Gadwali, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                               Versus

Pasco Motors (TATA Motors) NH-73, Opposite Gurudwara Dosarka, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala through its Branch Manager, Ambala-Jagadhri Road.

 

                    ..…. Opposite Party.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri C.M. Atri, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri P.K. Goel, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

         

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’), praying for issuance of following direction to it:-

1. To replace the old model of the vehicle or refund the amount of Rs.95,600/- alongwith interest @18% p.a.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant being unemployed, to earn his livelihood wanted to purchase a vehicle i.e. Pick UP Xenon and for this purpose, he approached the OP on 28.05.2016. The salesman of the OP told him to deposit a sum of Rs.95,600/- with their branch, out of the total value of Rs.6,19,000/- and agreed to sell the complainant a new model of Tata Xenon model 2016. He deposited a sum of Rs.95,000/- with OP vide receipts No.R1617-417, BR1617-468, BR1617-498 dated 29.05.2016, 07.06.2016, 13.06.2016 respectively and also gave four blank cheques of PNB, branch Ranjeetpur. On the day of purchase of vehicle, the OP did not handover the original bill and insurance documents etc. of the vehicle, with the plea that the same were required by the OP for the purpose of finance of the vehicle and assured that the same would be handed over to him after the completion of the formalities of finance. After sometime, when he got the original bill & other documents, then he visited the office of the Registration Authority, for getting the said vehicle registered, then he came to know that the OP had cheated and played fraud with him by selling the vehicle of old model of 2015 instead of 2016 model. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP and asked it the reason for playing fraud and cheating with him, upon which, the Branch Manager alongwith other employees misbehaved with him and used filthy language and threatened to misuse the blank security cheques. Earlier the complainant filed one civil suit regarding the same at Civil Courts, Bilaspur, which was withdrawn on some technical grounds. The complainant visited the office of the OP so many times and requested them to deliver the new vehicle of 2016 model, but all in vain. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question for commercial purpose. It is wrong that the vehicle manufactured in the year 2015 was sold to the complainant by telling the same to be manufactured in the year 2016. On 28.05.2016, it was clearly told to the complainant that no vehicle of model 2016, is lying with it and this vehicle was of model 2015. The complainant agreed to purchase the said vehicle, because the company had given a discount of Rs.72,000/-. The cost of vehicle was Rs.6,19,000/- and Temp. R.C. & Delight expenses (TRC) amounts to Rs.1200/- and insurance amount to Rs.25,291/- and thus, it become a total of Rs.6,45,491/-. The OP had given him a total discount of Rs.72,122/-, i.e. Rs.52,122/- discount on cost + Rs.20,000/- insurance charges. After deducting the discounted amount of Rs.72,122/- from Rs.6,45,491/-, the complainant was to pay Rs.5,73,369/-. It received finance amount of Rs.4,23,500/- and Rs.95,600/- deposited by the complainant. The complainant still had to pay outstanding amount of Rs.54,269/-, which he assured to pay at the time of receiving the Sale letter Form No.21, but he did not come to pay the balance amount. It is pertinent to mention here that documents of invoice of sale, insurance, temp. R.C. documents were given on the same day to the complainant. In the insurance policy, it was clearly mentioned that the vehicle had been manufactured in the year 2015, thus, no fraud allegedly had been committed with the complainant. Furthermore, Insurance department of Tata Motors Insurance broking and advisory service Ltd. company, do make a verification call (recording is now with the company) to the customer before taking delivery of the vehicle, who purchase a new vehicle. On receiving the verification call, complainant confirmed that he is satisfied with the vehicle details and himself told that he had purchased a vehicle having manufacturing year 2015. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP and the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavits of complainant and Satpal Singh as Annexure CW1/A & CW2/A respectively alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Shri Pawan Kumar, Authorized official of M/s Pasco Motors as Annexure RA alongwith documents Annexure R1 to R3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 28.05.2016, the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question for Rs.6,19,000/-, but the OP instead of selling him the vehicle manufactured in the year 2016, had sold the vehicle manufactured in the year 2015. Said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant agreed to purchase the vehicle manufactured in the year 2015, as he was given a total discount of Rs.72,122/-, i.e. Rs.52,122/- discount on cost + free insurance worth of Rs.20,000/-. After discount, the complainant was to pay Rs.5,73,369/-, whereas, he had paid Rs.5,19,100/- i.e. Rs.95,600/- in cash + Rs.4,23,500/-. There is still left due outstanding amount of Rs.54,269/- towards the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OP vide Retail Invoice dated 29.05.2016 (Annexure C-1/R-1). However, nothing about the discount has been mentioned in the said invoice. Even no other document has been produced on record by the OP, to show that it had given discount of Rs.72,000/- to the complainant for the purchase of vehicle having model 2015. Moreover, no document has been produced by the OP to establish that the complainant has still to pay balance amount of Rs.54269/- to it. So far as, the prayer made by the complainant for replacement of the vehicle is concerned, it may be stated here that in the case of M/s Supreme Mobiles Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar & Others, decided on 02.07.2019, the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula has held that the directions issued by the learned District Forum to replace the vehicle in question with a vehicle of current manufacturing year and that too without charging any additional cost is too harsh and impracticable and Ends of justice would be fully met if direction is issued to the opposite party No.1-appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant instead of giving him a car of the current year without charging any additional cost. In this view of matter, the prayer made by the complainant for replacement of the vehicle is not acceptable. Since the stand of the OP is that it had given discount of Rs.72,000/- to the complainant and the complainant had to pay balance amount of Rs.54,269/- to it, but it had failed to prove the same, therefore, the OP is liable to pay Rs.72,000/- to the complainant. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him alongwith the litigation expenses.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.72,000/- to the complainant on account of discount given to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. 

Announced on :20.08.2019.

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President