Punjab

Sangrur

CC/522/2017

Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prestige Honda - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Dhiraj Jindal

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  522

                                                Instituted on:    06.10.2017

                                                Decided on:       12.02.2018

 

Mohinder Singh Dhingra son of Bhagwan Singh, resident of House No.557, Gali No.4, Mehal Mubarak Colony, Sangrur (Punjab).

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Prestige Honda, Lally Motors Private Limited, Village Khurana, VPO Khurana, Near Golden Earth Global School, Patiala Road, Sangrur 148 001 through its Director.

2.             Honda Cars India Ltd. Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, UP 201306 through its Managing Director.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.2  :       Shri Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Mohinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant approached the OP number 1 to purchase a new car Honda WR V DE, which was booked on 27.3.2017 and the OP number 1 assured that the same would be delivered within a month and the OP number 1 also agreed to purchase the old Vento Car of the complainant for Rs.4,75,000/- on 4.4.2017 and issued Trade in Contract letter dated 4.4.2017 and the old car was agreed to be delivered to the OP number 1 at the time of delivery of the new car.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 credited only Rs.4,50,000/- instead of Rs.4,75,000/- in the account of the complainant at the time of final account of the complainant as the value of the old car. Though the complainant approached the OP number 1 for payment of Rs.25,000/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay/refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got booked the car in question and it is further admitted that the complainant was having a Vento car bearing number PB-13-W-0096 and the rate of the same was settled at Rs.4,75,000/- and contract letter dated 4.4.2017 was issued.  Further case of the OP number 1 is that after some days, he came back and asserted that he wants to retain the old registration number PB-13-W-0096 for his new car, so the new agreement was settled between the parties and the price of the old car was settled at Rs.4,50,000/- and the same amount was credited in his account at the time of the selling of the new car. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is false and frivolous one, that it is not a case of deficiency in service, that no privity of contract has been there between the complainant and OP number 2 and the present complaint is completely based on conjectures and surmises.  On merits, it is denied that the complainant is a consumer of the OP number 2 nor any transaction has took place between the complainant and OP number 2.  The allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/12 copies of documents and affidavits and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/B affidavit and documents and closed evidence.  

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased a new Honda car from the OP number 1 after adjusting his old car Vento with the OP number 1.  In the present case, now there is only one question which arises for determination whether the old car was sold for Rs.4,75,000/- or Rs.4,50,000/- by the complainant to the OP number 1, as the dispute is only about the less payment of Rs.25,000/- by Op number 1 to the complainant.  To support his contention, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has drawn our attention towards the Trade-in-Contract, Ex.C-5 dated 4.4.2017, which clearly reveals that the complainant sold his old Vento Car bearing registration number PB-13-W-0096 for Rs.4,75,000/-, which contract is duly signed by the Manager of the OP number 1 as well as the complainant.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the complainant has kept his old registration number with him and as such an amount of Rs.25,000/- was correctly deducted at the time of final payment to the complainant and accordingly the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was adjusted/credited instead of Rs.4,75,000/-.   We have very carefully perused the whole case file and also heard the arguments, but we failed to find out any document on record to show that the complainant entered into any fresh trade agreement by reducing the amount of Rs.25,000/- for keeping the old registration number of the Vento car for his New Honda Car.  Further the OP number 1 has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the old registration number was allotted to the new Honda Car of the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has sufficiently established on record that the old car was sold to the OP number 1 for Rs.4,75,000/-, whereas the OP number 1 adjusted only Rs.4,50,000/- as is evident from the copy of statement on record Ex.OP1/6 on 12.7.2017.  In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 1 adjusted less amount of Rs.25,000/- at the time of delivery of the Honda car to the complainant, which amount is liable to be paid by the OP number 1 to the complainant.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- only. The OP number 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation as well as an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        February 12, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member