Delhi

North East

CC/411/2012

Smt. Rukmani Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Renault- Delhi West A unit of Divine Autotech Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 411/12

 

CORAM:        Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Goel

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

                                                                                         

In the matter of:

 

Smt. Rukmani Jain, Proprietor,

M/s S.L. Metals

1/359-D, Gali No.3

Friends Colony Industrial Area

Shahdara, Delhi-110095                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Complainant                                       

 

Versus

 

Renault- Delhi West

(A unit of Divine Autotech Pvt. Ltd)

B-40/70, Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar

New Delhi-110015

                                                                                                            Opposite Party

 

Order

 

                                                                                      DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17-10-2012

                                                                                      DATE OF DECISION      :  07-01-2015

 

 

N.K. Goel, President :-

 

According to the amended complaint the complainant had booked a RENAULT Duster Car with the OP and made the advance payment of Rs. 50,000/- vide cheque No. 669564 dated 15-5-2012 drawn on State Bank of India, Krishna Nagar branch, Delhi to the OP who issued receipt No. 567 dated 14-5-2012. The complainant was told that the delivery of the car would be given to her in the 1^st week of July 2012. However, the complainant was not given the delivery of the car till 16-8-2012 on which date the OP told her that she should change the model No and the colour of the car but when the complainant did not agree to the said proposal of the Managing Director of the OP, the latter assured the former that she would get the delivery of the car before the end of August 2012 or else she would get the vehicle with Rs. 50,000/- as discount. However, the complainant did not receive the vehicle till 5-9-2012 on which date she was told by the manager of the OP that she should either wait for 10/15 days more or may take her booking amount back; that when the complainant contacted the OP she was told by one Gaurav Dang that the complainant would have to pay Rs. 30,000/- extra if she wanted the earlier delivery of the car as the OP had been charging Rs. 50,000/- extra from their customers. The complainant took the matter to the Delhi Disputes Resolution Society, Patpar Ganj, Delhi vide file No. 593 where the OP did not appear on 28-9-2012 and 12-10-2012 despite notice. The rates of the said car have also been increased upto Rs. 82,462/- w.e.f 1^st October 2012 but with a proviso that those who have booked the said car before August 2012 they would be given car at the old rates. According to the complainant she has lost her repudiation in the eyes of his relatives, neighbours/family members because of non delivery of car and she has also spent a huge amount on filing the present complaint and also has been mentally and physically tortured and hence is entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- with Rs. 50,000/- as booking charges of the car; that the OP is also charging logistic charges of Rs. 7,000/- for delivery of the car which has been stopped by the transport department and Delhi High Court; that the VIP No has also been cancelled thrice due to non delivery of the car and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- would be charged w.e.f. October 2012; that the car loan sanctioned by the bank has also been cancelled twice; that due to non delivery of the said car the complainant is still running a petrol run car. Hence it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs. 4,97,462/- to the complainant.

In its WS the OP has pleaded that the dispute is of a commercial nature and hence the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act; that the forum has no territorial jurisdiction as the transaction in question had taken place at the Moti Nagar office of the OP which falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of this forum; that the complainant cannot be permitted “to take advantage of occasioning herself delay in taking delivery of the Car”. It is stated that the Renault India had launched the Duster with introductory price of Rs. 7.19 Lacs for the entry level petrol variant powered by a 1.6 Litre engine and Rs. 7.99 Lacs (Ex-Showroom Delhi) for diesel variant powered by a 1.5 litre engine in the month of July; that the car received 20,000/- booking since its launch and the waiting period of delivery of the car is ordinarily 18-20 weeks. It is stated that the Renault India Car had to increase the retail price of the Renault Duster by upto Rs. 40,000/- w.e.f. 1^st October 2012 but with a clarification that “The Introductory price will be maintained for all the bookings made until the end of August, 2012 whether or not they are delivered at the time of the price hike.”   The booking of the Renault Car by the complainant is admitted but, however, it is stated that after depositing Rs. 50,000/- by one Shri Ankit Jain vide post dated cheque No. 669564 dated 15-5-2012 towards booking amount of Duster in the name of S.L. Metals which amount was duly acknowledged by the OP vide receipt No. 567 dated 14-5-2012 none visited the office of the OP till date. The said Ankit Jain was informed vide email on 11-10-12 (8.53 PM) as under:-

“Kindly note that as already intimated to you, we have received your vehicle (Renault Duster 85 PS, RXL (O)), Silver colour at our stock yard.  We would like to  request you to kindly complete all the formalities, finance, balance payments  duly credited to our account, valid registration documents  stamped and duly signed before  the office closing hours of 16^th October, 2012, so that we can get the vehicle registered and delivered to you by the evening of 17^th October, 2012 as desired by you. 

Kindly note that we can only deliver the vehicle to you after all the outstanding dues are cleared and credited to our account and it is registered with the concerned RTO. As discussed you are requested to visit our showroom on 16^th October, 2012 and inspect the vehicle so that we get it registered after your satisfaction.

Documents required for registration: Form -20 duly stamped and signed, Forum-34 duly signed and stamped, Pan card of the registered owner, valid address proof, water bill, MTNL bill/ S.T. Regn. Certificate /Import- export license from Govt. of India, duly signed and stamped.”

                           

It is stated that the said Mr Jain was sent another email on 16-10-2012 at 7:31 PM on behalf of the OP whereby he was informed that he could inspect his vehicle one day prior to delivery i.e. 17-10-2012 but no one turned up from the side of the complainant. Thereafter, email messages dated 17-10-2012 were exchanged between the said Mr. Ankit Jain and the office bearers of the OP and the complainant was provided the payment details (as described at Page 11 of the WS) in response to which the said Mr Jain vide email dated 22-10-12 (11.25 AM) informed that “As per Telephonic conversation you are not agreeing for proper billing according to law and you are overcharging the road tax which is also illegal.

If I am paying 999000 for car then I need billing of 999000 only with VAT. Nor I will take higher billing and not lower.”           

 

It is stated that those facts would amply show that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and, hence, is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

In her rejoinder the complainant has stated that the introductory price of the RXL (O) 85 diesel was Rs. 9 lacs 99 thousand and the billing has to be done on the same price only, neither above nor below; that the booking number of the complainant’s car was 37 according to the list printed by the OP.

The complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence and she has also relied on documents exhibit CW1/1 to CW1/16. On the other hand, affidavit of Shri Vishkarma (Team Manager) AR has been filed on behalf of the OP. One document exhibit RW1/1 has also been filed on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP. We have heard the son of the complainant and the counsel for the OP and have also carefully perused the record.

According to the complainant herself email dated 17-10-2012 had been received by her son Shri Ankit Jain. Copy of the same has been filed by the complainant as exhibit CW1/10. Vide the said email the OP had provided the payment details of the Renault Duster RXL (O) 85 silver colour. The Ex- Showroom price of the car, insurance amount, registration charges and the essential kit charges have been shown as Rs. 999000/-, Rs. 38309/-, Rs. 135045/- and Rs. 38790/- respectively. Logistic charges have been shown as Rs. 7000/-. The complainant has filed an illegible copy of a public notice said to have been issued by the Transport Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi by which the intending buyers of the vehicles in NCT of Delhi were interalia advised not to pay any logistic charges/handling/miscellaneous charges etc to the dealers. The public notice does not bear any date. We proceed on the assumption that the said public notice was in force on 17-10-2012 when the email copy of which is exhibit CW1/10 containing payment details of the car had been sent to the complainant. Even if we deduct the amount of Rs. 7000/- from the Ex-showroom price and other charges of the car they would not come to Rs. 999000/- as described by the complainant to be paid to the OP.  Rs. 999000/- was in fact the Ex-Showroom price of the car. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Ex-Showroom price of any vehicle does not include in it the other charges such as insurance charges and registration charges etc and such charges have to be paid by the buyer in addition to the Ex-Showroom price of the vehicle. Even if we accept that the complainant could herself get the vehicle insured and was not bound to pay the insurance charges of Rs. 38,309/- in respect of the car to be delivered to her by the OP to the OP the complainant was still bound to pay the registration charges of Rs. 1,35,045/- to the OP because the OP was not legally supposed to deliver the car without getting it registered in the office of the concerned RTO/MLO. It may be that the complainant might have obtained the VIP number of the car in question but due to non delivery of the car validity of the same had expired once or twice but the same did not make her entitled not to pay the registration charges to the OP at the time of taking the delivery of the car. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe that the OP committed deficiency in service by asking the complainant to pay registration charges in respect of the car to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was totally unjustified in asking the OP to issue a bill of Rs. 999000/- only with VAT to her against the total price of the car. OP would have issued a bill by bifurcating the amounts towards Ex-showroom price of the car, registration charges and any other amount legally chargeable from the complainant.

There is no evidence on record to show that anyone on behalf of the OP had ever asked the complainant to pay Rs. 30,000/- extra in case she wanted to take early delivery of the car or the OP had delivered the car to anyone else on priority basis after ignoring the turn of the complainant. Thus, it was because of her own conduct by forcing the OP to issue a bill for Rs. 999000/- against the price of the car that the delivery of the car could not be made by the OP to the complainant in time. Thus, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

(Announced on 07-01-2015) 

 

(N.K.Goel)                                                                            (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)

President                                                                                       Member