Haryana

StateCommission

A/1222/2018

M/S JOY HONDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMPHAL AND OTHES - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

25 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.1222 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution: 30.10.2018

                                                         Date of order: 25.05.2023

 

M/s Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, Near Jeet Dharam Kanta, OP Jindal Marg, Hisar Distt. Hisar through its Authorized representative.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Ramphal S/o Sh.Kitab Singh aged about 41 years, R/o VPO Kinala Tehsil Barwala Distt. Hisar.

2.      Manager, Cholamandalam Investment s and finance Company ltd. Hisar.

3.      Managing Director, Cholamandalam Investments and finance Company Limited Dare House 1^st Floor 2, NSC Bose road, Chennai-600001.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.J.K.Sehrawat, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. S.C.Thatai, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 95 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased the car make Honda Amaze from the opposite party No.1 by paying Rs.1,00,000/- cash and remaining amount towards its cost was to be disbursed to the dealer-OP him by OP No.2 and 3 being financer.  Afterwards it came to the knowledge of the complainant  thatthe invoice of Rs.6,12,605/- was issued by OP No.1, however, OP No.1 received an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- from OP No.2 and 3 in addition to that of Rs.1,00,000/-which was paid in cash.Infact OP No.1 has sold an old model with year of manufacture of 2015 and it was used as demo car to complainant. However in the month of February 2017, the officials of OP No.2 and 3 snatched the keys of his vehicle from him forcibly. Faced with this situation, he went to the police station and informed about the said incident.
Therefore he went office of OP No.2 also and requested to release the vehicle and also appraised them that he has been depositing all of his installments in time.  He also requested the OP No.2 to release the vehicle, but to no avail. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.      Notice was issued to the Ops and they filed written versions separately. OP No.1 submitted that the complainant did not contribute anything not even a single penny towards the cost of the car. The invoices for the car was raised for an amount of Rs.9,13,766/- under different heads i.e. car value, logistics, accessories etc. An amount of Rs. 9,88,162/- was gotreimbursed from OP No.2. The complainant  alongwith Mr. Vijay Nehra signed all the documents like delivery note, customer relationship document, refund voucher  etc.. A refund of Rs.74,396/- was also paid to the complainant.  A heavy discount of Rs.4,00,000/- was given to the complainant on account of this vehicle being demo car earlier. The loan was granted by OP No.2.  It was denied  that the car in question was snatchedby OP No.2.  Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1  and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.      OP No.2 and 3 submitted that the complainant himself approached them seeking financial assistance for purchase of Honda Amaze car. In response to said request, the answering OPs granted financial assistance to the tune of Rs.6,90,000/- to complainant and thuson 30.06.2016, the said borrower and answering OPs entered into loan agreement.As per agreement, the complainant was bound to pay monthly EMIs. Prior to  taking of possession of the vehicle several communications and correspondences were made to the complainant requesting him to make payment of the outstanding amount but hemalafidelydid not pay the outstanding dues. It was  further submitted that the complainant had purchased the demo vehicle with a heavy cash discount but he managed to raise financial assistance much more than that of actual purchase price of vehicle.  The complainant was not at all entitled to get back the vehicle and like was also not entitled to receive any money from the OPs rather the boot is on the other foot and it was the OPs company who were entitled to recover a huge amount from the complainant in respect of  his loan account. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Hisarhas allowed the complaint vide order dated 11.06.2018. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is  hereby allowed, with a direction to respondent No.1 to pay Rs.74,396/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 16.03.2017 till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- for his harassment and mental agony and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses etc.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      These argumentswere advanced by Sh.Vaibhav Jain Advocate alongwith Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellant as well as Sh.J.K.Sehrawat,Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. S.C.Thathai, Advocate for the respondent No.2. With their kind assistance entire record of the appealas well as original record of District Commission, evidence led on behalf of  both parties has also properly perused and examined.

8.      It is not disputed that complainant purchased the Honda Amaze car from the opposite party No.1-appellant.  It is also not disputed that O.P.No.2 and 3 were financer and the vehicle was financed as per the request of the complainant.   It is also not disputed that an amount of Rs.74,396/- was refunded to Vijay Nehra, who was complainant’s friend who at the time of delivery of the vehicle had signed various documents on behalf of the complainant.   It is also not disputed that the car purchased by complainant used to a demo car. Perusal of the file shows that  the OP No.1 has paid Rs.74,396/- to Mr. Vijay Nehra under some mistake, who was not the complainant or purchaser whereas it was the responsibility of the appellant to have refunded the balance amount to the complainant.  The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant.

9.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, present appeal stands dismissed on merits.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.98,000/- and Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be re-imbursed to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

25thMay, 2023                                                                                 S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)