Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/408

Meenu Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pioneer Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No: 408 of 27.05.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 12.06.2015

                    

Meenu Kapoor w/o and through Sh.Sunil Kapoor s/o Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block-1, House no.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

.…Complainant

Versus 

1. Pioneer Hyundai, MRG Auto Pvt. Ltd. G.T.Road, Sherpur, Ludhiana-141003, through its General Manager.

2. Hyundai Motor India Limited, 5^th & 6^th Floor, Coporate One, (Baani Building), Plot no.5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110025, through the Concerned Person.

3. District Transport Officer, Office of the DTO, Ludhiana-141001.

 

…..Opposite parties 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:     Sh.Sunil Kapoor, Representative for complainant.

                   Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate for OP1.

                   Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for OP2.

                   OP3 exparte.  

 

ORDER

 

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Smt.Meenu Kapoor w/o and through Sh.Sunil Kapoor s/o Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block-1, House no.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Pioneer Hyundai, MRG Auto Pvt. Ltd. G.T.Road, Sherpur, Ludhiana, through its General Manager (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to refund the said amount of Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. accrued thereon, to refund of excess taken from the complainant i.e. Rs.35,000/- minus taxes and fee collected in regard with RC and HSRP as stated above, to make cash rebate as per company’s policy in vogue approximately Rs.20,000/-, to make corporate Rebate as per company’s policy in vogue Approx. Rs.5000/-, to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation and as litigation expenses to the complainant alongwith any other relief, which the Forum deems fit.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that one agent of OP1 namely Sh.Nakul Gupta had approached the complainant on 30.3.15 and canvassed for the sale of new car make EON Era+ from Hyundai. Taking into consideration its attractive features and price segment and also the requirement of a car for her personal and family use, the complainant agreed to buy the said car and complainant had given a token money of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque. Total price of the said vehicle including Vat etc. was Rs.3,35,000/- including its insurance, Registration certificate, High security Registration Plate (HSRP) and other undisclosed expenses. The complainant made the payment to OP1 on different dates i.e. Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque no.576294 dated 30.3.14 and receipt no.3614 of 30.3.14 was duly encashed, Rs.1,50,000/- by way of cheque no.576295 dated 31.3.14 and receipt no.3621 of 31.3.14 was duly encashed, Rs.1,35,000/- made in cash and receipt no.3573 dated 31.3.14 for Rs.1.00 lac was provided by OP1. It is submitted that Rs.35,000/- was received off-record by OP1 with the plea that the said amount is towards Insurance, RC, HSRP and other expenses which had never been disclosed to the complainant. However, as verbal assurance was given that receipt against the said amount of Rs.35,000/- would be provided when the RC has been prepared and HSRP has been affixed on to the vehicle. On 31.3.14 the complainant has visited the showroom of OP1 and filled the required documents. Thereafter the complainant made the balance demanded payment and got the delivery of the said vehicle alongwith vehicle Insurance Cover-Note, Delivery Certificate, Temporary Registration Certificate having validity period of one month and OP1 had given the verbal false assurance that Certificate of Registration as well as HSRP will be provided within one month from the date of purchase of said vehicle. But the OP1 failed to supply the RC and HSRP, after the expiry of Temporary Registration Certificate. Complainant also wrote a letter dated 17.5.14 to OP1 requesting them to provide receipt against Rs.35,000/- and RC of the vehicle, Cash Rebate and Corporate Rebate as well. But the OP1 was failed to reply the said letter of the complainant. The complainant also wrote a letter dated 19.5.14 under registered cover to OP3 to take appropriate action against OP1, but OP3 also did not bother to reply the said letter. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement that the complainant is herself at fault as she had delayed the payment of balance sale price of the vehicle and the Registration Certificate is supplied to the customer only on the receipt of full payment. The complainant had herself given an undertaking that she shall not claim the Registration Certificate till the time the account is cleared by her; the complainant is estopped from filing this complaint. Besides this, she had also received the cash discount as well as corporate discount and her grievance regarding this is also false. On merits, submitted that the price of the said car was Rs.3,35,449/- and the OP1 had offered to make the Registration Certificate and HSRP free. The insurance was the responsibility of the complainant. The OP1 had also given a cash discount of Rs.13,449/- and corporate discount of Rs.2000/-, thus the price of the car had come down to Rs.3,20,000/-. The OP1 had received Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant (Rs.50,000/- + Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-), thus a balance of Rs.20,000/- was left to be paid by the complainant. This amount of Rs.20,000/- was delayed by the complainant and therefore she was not entitled to receive the Registration Certificate. The abovesaid Nakul Gupta was an associate of the complainant and is not an agent of the OP1. After persistent requests to the complainant the abovesaid Nakul Gupta on behalf of the complainant sent Rs.5000/- by way of bank transfer on 27.5.14 and Rs.15,000/- was paid by cash. Only after the entire payment of Rs.3,20,000/- was received, the OP1 supplied the Registration Certificate. The affixing of HSRP is the job of the complainant. The RC stands supplied to the complainant after clearance of the account. No sum of Rs.35,000/- was received by cash without receipt by OP1. This is a false allegation. The sale letter/sale invoice also stands received by the complainant. Further denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, OP1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                On notice of the complaint, OP2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint; no cause of action has arisen qua the answering OP for filing the present complaint. Further submitted that the liability of answering OP being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone and error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales or services of the car on the part of the Dealer cannot be fastened upon the answering OP. Further submitted that the cars are purchased by the concerned dealers such as OP1 from answering OP against payment and thereafter he purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers. Admittedly there is no allegations relating to performance of the car manufactured by the answering OP. Further dealer is not authorized to make any commitment on behalf of the answering OP and hence answering OP cannot be held liable or responsible for any misrepresentation or commitment, if any, made by the OP1 or its employees, in its own capacity, to the consumer as they are neither an agent nor employee of the answering OP and same is not binding upon the answering OP. On merits, denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.                On notice of the complaint, OP3 appeared through his Representative Sh.Gurmeet Singh and filed written statement, whereby submitted that the work of Registration of new vehicles in the State of Punjab has been entrusted to the respective authorized automobile dealers for the new vehicles being sold by them and for this purpose, they have been appointed as the Special Registering Authorities including the OP1. The complainant Ms.Meenu Kapoor is alleged to have purchased one new car EON Era+ from the OP2. The complainant Ms.Meenu Kapoor in order to get her new car registered, is also alleged to have made the payment of Rs.35,000/- towards insurance, Registration Certificate, HSRP and other expenses to the OP1. There is dispute between the complainant and the OP1 over the Registration of new EON Era+ car which was allegedly purchased by her from OP1 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP3 in any manner whatsoever.

6.                Representative of complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ms.Meenu Kapoor Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C8 to Ex.C37. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP2 has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Manish Kumar s/o S.P.Singh, working as Assistant Manager, Legal and Secretarial with Hyundai Motor India Limited Ex.RA2, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement.

7.                It is pertinent to mention here that evidence of OP1 was not adduced by OP1, despite giving numbers of opportunities, as such, evidence of OP1 was closed by order, vide order dated 10.4.15. On the other hand, evidence on behalf of OP3 was not adduced and OP3 was proceeded exparte, vide order dated 10.4.15, as none had come present on behalf of OP3 on the date fixed.

8.                Complainant filed written arguments, whereby submitted that the complainant had moved an application dated 28.10.14 for declaring hostile the so-called witness Ex.CW1 namely Ajay Verma, an employee of OP1. The OP1 cross-examined his own employee. Moreover, no prior permission of the Forum has been preferred by OP1 to cross-examine the above said so-called witness. The said Ajay Verma, during cross-examination has given a bald statement on 13.10.14 only as per the dictate and wishes of his employer i.e. OP1. Since said statement is false and incorrect to the very knowledge of OP1 aimed at benefiting his own employer and against the true that the same may be termed as hostile. Furthermore, no documents have been submitted by said Ajay Verma in support of the said statement. The OP1 had admitted that the complainant has only summoned the required documents to lead evidence on her part, which is the bonafide intention of the application dated 26.9.14.

9.                On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OP1 filed written arguments, whereby submitted that the main grievance of the complainant is that the price of the car in question was Rs.3,35,000/- against receipts, but Rs.35,000/- was received by OP1 without receipt. She has further alleged that the RC was not supplied to her. It is submitted that it is highly un-proveable that the complainant will take proper receipts for Rs.3.00 lacs, but did not take receipt for Rs.35,000/-. In fact only Rs.3.00 lac was paid by the complainant initially. From the complaint itself, it is crystal clear that the complainant had not paid the full amount of the car, so she was not entitled to claim the RC unless she had paid the entire amount. The RC was supplied to her when the balance was paid by her. One who seeks equity must do equity. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. The RC was retained only because balance payment was pending.

10.              Ld. counsel for OP2 argued orally that the liability of OP3 being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone and error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales or services of the car on the part of the Dealer cannot be fastened upon the answering OP. Further argued that the cars are purchased by the concerned dealers such as OP1 from OP2 against payment and thereafter he purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers. Admittedly there are no allegations relating to performance of the car manufactured by OP2. Further dealer is not authorized to make any commitment on behalf of the manufacturer and hence answering OP cannot be held liable or responsible for any misrepresentation or commitment.

10.              We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant and written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant and OP1 as well as defence taken by the OPs and also perused the entire record placed on file.

11.              It is evident that complainant purchased Car make EON Era+ from Hyundai and payment of Rs.3.00 lac was made to them. However the complainant failed to justify his deposition that he made the payment of Rs.3,50,000/- to OP1 on 30.3.14. But the executive namely Sh.Nakul Gupta of OP1 got filled in the required documents. Further the complainant has failed to prove in any manner that he had made the balance payment to OP1. Though, there are receipts of remaining balance Ex.C8 to Ex.C10.

12.              In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits with no order as to cost. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                             (Sat Paul Garg)                                 (R.L.Ahuja)

                                  Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:12.06.2015 

Hardeep Singh