Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Camp Court, Amritsar
Consumer Complaint No : RBT 651 of 2017
Date of Institution : 15.09.2017
Date of Decision : 05.05.2022
Sarjog Singh aged 47 years son of Sh. Kulwant Singh resident of village Fvill, Thakur Sandhu, Quadian, District Gurdaspur, Punjab Mobile No. 98150-95218.
…Complainant
Versus
- Rishabh Four Wheeler Opposite Bijli Ghar, Batala Road Amritsar- 143001 Punjab through its Proprietor/ Manager/ authorized signatory, Mobile No. 98140-51577
- Maruti India Limited (MSIL) formerly known as Maruti Udyog Limited Head Office: Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi-110070 through its Manager/MD/partner/ Prop/authorized signatory.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Ms. NidhiVerma, Member
For Complainant Sh. Sanjeet Singh Advocate
For Opposite Party Sh. S.K. Davessar Advocate
PER:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.
2 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11 and 12 against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant is a permanent resident of aforementioned address and is a 60% handicapped person. He is peace loving and law abiding citizen. The opposite party framed a scheme on 16.12.2013 and declare as a “December saving BONANZA and claims to offer “Alto 800 Purani Keemat Rs. 2,50 Lakh (Get saving up to Rs. 61500) and Rs. 1.89 Lakh” The opposite party published advertisement through Ajit News Paper and claims to offer Hurry Up purchase before the hike of prices and special offers for Farmers other sectors. In order to induce and allured by the opposite parties and the complainant to believes the said offer advertisement being exchange prices less than the usual prices, the complainant approached before the opposite party no. 1 and meet there sales executive of opposite party No. 1 for the detailed informations about the said offer advertisement in the news paper. On attracting by advertisement on display Alto 800 on newspaper, after going through its advertisement of 2.50 Lakh and offer Price was Rs. 1.89 Lakh approximately saving up to Rs. 61,500/-, the complainant approached to opposite party No. 1 show room and the sales executive of the opposite party No. 1 explained to complainant that it is an exchange offer so you bring old car in our show room and get new car saving up to Rs. 61,500/- and assured that delivery will be very next day after taking delivery from the complainant as an old car. The whole deal done by the authroised sales executive of opposite party No. 1 and the physical inspection of the complainant old car in question was made by the opposite party No. 1 Engineers and assessed its value of Rs. 60,000/- and asked to remaining amount either in the form of cash or cheque. Accordingly, the complainant submitted the documents including a Blank cheque of Rs. 89,000/- dated 1.1.2013, cash amount of Rs. 40,000/- and dropped his old Maruti 800 car 2003 Model bearing No. PB54 A 6980 before the opposite party No. 1 showroom on the same date. After completing all required formalities of documents as well as remaining amounts in the form of cash and cheque of the opposite parties, the complainant was promised to come on tomorrow and take a delivery of your new car as per the display advertisement. On assurance of the opposite party No. 1, on very next day the complainant alongwith his friend with great enthusiasm and cheer went to showroom of opposite party No. 1 for taken new car delivery, but the complainant and his friend was shocked to see that the opposite party No. 1 showroom was closed without any prior intimation or even without any reason written notice display outside the showroom. The complainant and his friend was return back to home without any positive result. Thereafter, the complainant and his friend made three repeated visits but again the office of the opposite parties was closed then the complainant felt that it was going to be something wrong in the hands of opposite parties. After made three visits, on next day the complainant again approached the opposite party office for the same issue and asked for contact number of the concerned person of opposite party head office to find out the solution but the opposite party has straight way denied to give the contract number. Now at this issue, the complainant tried visiting the stores and speaking to number of concerned person but the concerned persons of the opposite party refused the request straight away and again give the same reply as earlier. The complainant has searched the contact numbers of the opposite parties on his own level and contact them at their toll free number 1800 102 1800 of opposite party No. 2 and 98140-51577 of opposite party No. 1 and asked them earlier to return old car or else refund my booking amount alongwith interest but the opposite parties never bothered to listen the genuine request or call of the complainant. After constantly following up with the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party no. 2 on their contact numbers to get the delivery of the new car every time they informed that they do not have any stock still and you need to wait for 3-4 months. The complainant have to hear Sir Sorry, we do not have the stock, we have sent you car demand to opposite party No. 2 and some time tries to ignore the complainant call and most of the times says that “ I will call back in 10 Minutes” and never call back. The opposite parties were not competent to give the present status of the complainant old car as well new car even though the behavior of the opposite parties staff was very ignorant, harsh and pathetic. The complainant have landed in a situation of begging for his car rather exchange of new one car. After constantly follow up of more than more three years from the date of booking and spent huge amount and time on these undesired and uncalled events, after long gap of two years the opposite parties have refunded Rs. 40,000/- through NEFT cheque No. 36560 with OBC Bank on 5.2.2015 and further after gap three years another amount of Rs. 12,000/- through NEFT with OBC Bank on 1.3.2016. On 2.3.2016, 4.3.2016 and again on 8.3.2016, the complainant visited with the opposite party No. 1 office for demand either delivery of the New one exchange car or may be the refund assessed amount of the old car with interest or also interest amount on the above refunded amounts. Opposite parties replied to the complainant in this way that the stock of the said car was over and on the other side the value of your old car was now reduced to be Zero in the market. It is not in our hands hence we could not do anything more as above. During the entire periods and events as such the opposite parties have never sent any type of notice, message either through by post, electronic media or print media to the complainant. The complainant has prayed to refund the complainant assessed car price of Rs. 60,000/- and also 18% interest there on and further interest 18% on Rs. 40,000/- period from 01.01.2013 to 05.02.2015 and on Rs. 12,000/-period from 01.01.2013 to 01.03.2016 on account of made delay payment and also return Blank cheque of Rs. 89,000/-. To stop from committing such kind of unfair trade practice to the general public. To stop from misleading consumers by a misleading advertisement. To pay the amount to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for mental agony, time spent on these undesired and uncalled for events suffered by the complainant for unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties. To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. Punitive damages may also be imposed as opposite parties have earned in lacs by way of committed such unfair trade practice from its consumers and to accept the present complaint.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and suppressed material facts and as such, the present complaint merits dismissal on this simple score only. The real state of affairs are that only a sum of Rs. 39,650/- was received in cash by the opposite party No. 1 on 31.12.2013 and the complainant asked opposite party No. 1 to hold his new vehicle as he was arranging for balance amount either through cash/ finance. The value of the old car of the complainant was assessed to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- only as the old vehicle of the complainant was Maruti 800 Model 2003 and earlier it was in the name of Jaswinder Kaur and then it was transferred in the name of Jaswinder Kaur and then it was transferred in the name of Satnam Singh and then in the name of complainant and the complainant was fully satisfied and aware regarding the value assessed to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- as stated above. A sum of rs. 25,000/- as exxhange bonus was to be adjusted from invoice only when the new vehicle was to be delivered to the complainant. The complainant could not arrange the balance payment of new vehicle and as such, the opposite party No. 1 had to cancel his invoice as well as insurance. Even the letter dated 27.1.2015 which was duly written and signed by the complainant is self explanatory in which complainant admitted that he could not arrange the finance for the balance sale price of the vehicle and as such, requested the opposite party to refund the advance amount and even the complainant also admitted regarding the value of his old car in the same very letter, but all these facts have been suppressed by the complainant. Amount to the tune of Rs. 39,650/- was transferred in the account of complainant on 5.2.2015 and an amount to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- was transferred in the account of complainant on 29.2.2016 as the complainant was interested to adjust the said amount of Rs. 12,000/- in some other new vehicle, but he came his stand in Feb 2016 and as such, even the same very amount of Rs. 12,000/- was transferred in his account and the complainant was fully satisfied, but just with a view to get wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss the present complaint has been filed on false and flimsy grounds. The complainant executed various transfer documents regarding his old vehicle and requested the opposite party to self the same and even in respect thereof the amount to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- sands transferred in the account of complainant as stated above and even the shallowness and falsity of complainant can be well judged keeping in view the documents and facts and circumstances of the case and as such, the present complaint merits dismissal. The present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. On merits, it was pleaded that the scheme of exchange bonus is to be given by the opposite party No. 2 and not by the dealer. The opposite party No. 1 has already held new vehicle, insurance was cut for the same, but due to balance payment, which was not received by the opposite party, the opposite party had to cancel the new vehicle invoice and insurance and as such, the opposite party suffered loss regarding cancellation of the insurance cut for 9690/- and even the opposite party No. 1 had to suffer additional loss as the vehicle allotted to complainant as sold on discount in next year i.e. 2014 to another customer in the name of CSD Jarnail Singh 23.01.2014. Letter dated 27.01.2015 was given by the complainant to the opposite party which is self explanatory and the same reflects the act and conduct of the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
4 Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2 but the opposite party No. 2 did not appear despite service, therefore, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.11.2017.
5 To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of certificate issued by Civil Surgeon Gurdaspur Ex. C-2, Copy of Newspaper cutting Ex. C-3, Copy of account statement dated 12.7.2016 Ex. C-4, copy the account statement dated 19.3.2016 Ex. C-5, photographs Ex. C-6, C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Akhil Arora ex. OP1/A, copy of evaluation sheet Ex. OP1/1, copy of purchase certificate Ex. OP1/2, copy of invoice Ex. OP1/3, copy of insurance cover Ex. OP1/4, copy of letter written by the complainant Ex. OP1/5, copy of statement of account Ex. OP1/6 to OP1/8 and closed the evidence.
6 We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and have carefully gone through the record.
7 From the combined and harmonious reading of pleading and documents placed on record going to prove that the opposite party framed a scheme on 16.12.2013 and declared as a “December saving BONANZA and claims to offer “Alto 800 Purani Keemat Rs. 2,50 Lakh (Get saving up to Rs. 61500) and Rs. 1.89 Lakh”. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and met with sales executive for detailed information about the said offer advertised in newspaper. As per the advertisement Alto 800 of 2,50,000/- and offer prize was Rs. 1.89 Lac approximately. Meaning thereby that saving was up to Rs. 68,500/-. The said scheme was offered on Maruti Old Car in exchange to get a new car. As per the complainant, the engineer of opposite party No. 1 assessed the value of the car to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- and asked him to pay the remaining amount either in cash or in the form of cheque. Accordingly, the complainant submitted the entire documents including blank cheque of Rs. 89000/- dated 1.1.2013 and cash amount of Rs. 40,000/- and handed over his old Maruti Car 2003 Model bearing registration No. PB54-A-6980. But when the complainant alongwith his friend reached to take the delivery of new car he was shocked to see that opposite party No. 1 showroom was closed without any proper intimation. Thereafter, the complainant visited three times but again opposite party show room was closed. After repeated visits the complainant contacted the opposite party on their toll free Numbers and asked them either to return the old car or to refund my booking amount but the opposite party never bothered to listen the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant further contended that they do not have any stock and you have to wait for 3/4 months and he further stated that after a long gap of two years the opposite party has refunded 40000/- through NEFT and after gap of three years another amount of Rs. 12000/- through NEFT on 1.3.2016. Now the complainant has prayed the present complaint may8 be allowed.
8 But we are not agreed with the contentions of the complainant as no cogent proof has been placed on record that his old car was assessed for Rs.60,000/-. The opposite party has placed on record vehicle evaluation sheet as Ex. OP1/1 where the total price of vehicle is shown as Rs. 12,000/- and exchange bonus is Rs. 22,000/-. The opposite party No. 1 has placed on record purchase agreement between both the parties which clearly shows that the complainant has sold his old car bearing its registration No. PB54-A-6980 for the amount of Rs. 12,000/- and further in the description at serial No. 3 Rs. 25,000/- is shown as adjustment in case of new car transaction as exchange bonus. Further, as per Ex. OP1/3 the invoice dated 31.12.2013 the amount of new Alto Car is Rs. 2,31,736/- and insurance cover note of the said car is Ex. OP1/4. Further opposite party has placed on record application which was addressed to Rishabh Four wheeler regarding the returned of payment as Ex. OP1/5, in this letter dated 27.1.2015 the complainant himself stated that I have deposited Rs. 40,000/- for purchase of new car may kindly be returned as I could not arrange the finance of a new car and further he requested that Rs. 12,500/- for the old car plus Rs. 35,000/- as exchange bonus be given and said letter is duly signed by the complainant. The amount of Rs. 35,000/- cannot be refunded to the complainant as it was only an exchange bonus. Thereafter, the opposite party refunded the amount of Rs. 40,000/- on dated 05.02.2015, copy of statement is Ex. OP1/6, thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 has refunded an amount of Rs. 12,000/- on 01.03.2016 statement of the same is Ex. OP1/7.
9 We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party No. 1 has not committed any deficiency in service as the amount which was received at the time of booking was refunded to the complainant. Further the value which was assessed by the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- was refunded to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that old car was having 2003 model and it was transferred in the names of three persons time to time and the complainant was satisfied with the amount which was assessed by the opposite party. Further, Rs. 25,000/- was also adjusted as exchange bonus. The complainant was entitled for the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- in case he would have purchased the new Maruti Alto 800 as per the scheme floated by the opposite party. As per letter Ex. OP1/5 addressed to Rishab Four wheeler by the complainant, he himself has shown his incapacity to purchase the new car as he could not arrange the finance well in time. So as per the request of the complainant, the opposite party has rightly refunded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- and amount of Rs. 12,000/-. The complainant has requested to refund Rs. 60,000/- as assessed by opposite party, but the complainant has not placed on record any document which shows that at any point of time, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- was assessed by the opposite party. The opposite party has refunded Rs. 40,000/- as well as an amount of Rs. 12,000/- as the value of car assessed at the time of booking. The complainant has prayed to return the cheque which was issued to the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 89,000/-. But at this stage that old cheque cannot be used by the opposite party as cheque is too old. Moreover, the opposite party has placed on record an insurance cover note Ex. OP1/4 in the name of Sarjog Singh of dated 31.12.2013 which shows that the opposite party was ready to sell the vehicle as per scheme but as the complainant could not arrange the finance and same could not be finalized and as such opposite party also suffered a financial loss as expenditure on insurance of new vehicle and as such opposite party also suffered a financial loss. Consequently, there is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
10 We are of the consider view that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency on the part of opposite parties, as such, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs..Copy of order will be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.
Announced in Open Commission
05.05.2022
Charanjit Singh
President NidhiVerma
Member
