Haryana

Ambala

CC/358/2021

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samrithi Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. Singh Chuhan

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	358  of 2021
Date of Institution	:	26.11.2021
Date of decision	:	03.04.2023

 

Mandeep Singh aged about 36 years s/o Shri Suresh Pal Pundir, R/o H.No.386, Vashisht Nagar, Ambala Cantt (Mb.No.82228-86699 & 82229- 43571).

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Samrithi Hyundai, M/s Samrithi Motors Private Limited, Village Tepla, Ambala-Jagadhri Road, (Auto HUB), Ambala Cantt-133 001, Haryana, through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Hyundai Motor India Limited, 2nd and 6th Floors, Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No.05, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi- 110 076, (Phone-011-66022000), through its Authorized Signatory.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri J.P. Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                             OP No.1 already ex parte.

                             Shri Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Sections 34 and 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To deliver to the complainant new booked Black Colour Creta EX Diesel car, on the same price against the payment made to OP No.1.
2. To pay the amount of instalment of bank loan paid by the complainant to State Bank of India, Ambala Cantt., against the vehicle loan taken till delivery of the car, to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.10,00,000/- on account of compensation for causing deficiency in services and unfair trade practice and harassment, mental torture and agony.

(iv) To pay Rs.33,000/- as litigation costs.

(v) Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may         deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a bonafide resident of Vashisht Nagar, Ambala Cantt and he is working as a Spare Parts Manager in Tata Motors situated at Dosarka, District Ambala. He used to go from his house to his working place on the vehicles of others after taking lifts as well as through Taxi etc. and as such he was facing humiliation. In order to lead his normal life, he booked Creta EX. Colour Black (diesel) vehicle with OP No.1 on 26.03.2021 on making payment of booking amount of Rs.25,000/-. At the time of booking the said vehicle, it was assured by OP No.1 that delivery thereof will be given within 04 months positively i.e. by July, 2021 on payment of remaining amount. The Sales Executive of OP No.1 further disclosed to the complainant that if, in any case, the complainant does not want delivery of the said vehicle and cancels his booking, an amount of Rs.3,000/- will be deducted out of the said booking amount of Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant remained in constant contact with the Mr.Sunil-Sales Executive of OP No.1 on his Mobile No.97298-88508 about delivery of his vehicle, who always assured the complainant that the delivery of his vehicle will be made positively in the last week of July, 2021. Accordingly in the last week of July, 2021; the complainant approached OP No.1 and contacted Mr.Sunil Sales Executive to know about the delivery of his vehicle. The said Sales Executive induced the complainant that the delivery of his booked vehicle will be made to him very shortly and he was asked to deposit Rs.2,00,000/-.  The complainant was further asked to make payment of Rs.11,25,000/- in the Account of OP No.1 i.e. Samrithi Hyundai bearing A/c No.31662235815 for taking the delivery of the aforesaid booked vehicle. As such, the complainant took car loan of Rs.11,25,000/- from State Bank of India, Branch Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. and the said  amount was transferred from his Loan Account No.40353768234 to OP No.1 on 09.08.2021. However, after receiving the  huge amount referred to above, OP No.1 failed to deliver the said vehicle and on the other hand, again asked the complainant to deposit remaining amount of  Rs.2,00,000/-, which he paid  on 11.08.2021. In this manner, the complainant paid total sum of Rs.13,50,000/- by 11.08.2021 to OP No.1. Despite transferring the total amount of the booked vehicle by the complainant, the delivery thereof was not made to him by 11.09.2021 and on the persistent requests of the complainant, Mr.Sunil Sales Executive induced the complainant to contact the General Manager of OP No.1 namely Mr. Lakshya Khanna. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the General Manager of OP No.1 who told that the lot of cars including the booked car of the complainant are coming in big vehicles and the vehicles in which the lot of cars are coming is fastened due to break down in Madhya Pradesh and he further disclosed to the complainant that it will take hardly 3-4 days more in delivering him the vehicle. When despite the assurance of the General Manager, the said booked vehicle was not delivered to the complainant', he contacted the Regional Office and came to know that the General Manager had not ordered for the delivery of Black Colour Creta EX.Diesel Car and the G.M. had  not booked the car of the complainant despite taking the entire amount. Moreover, since the complainant got the amount deposited in the account of OP No.1 after taking loan from State Bank of India, Sadar Bazar Ambala Cantt Branch, on the inducement of said Mr.Sunil Sales executive; as such first installment of his loan amount as calculated by the Bank Authority had become due and in order to avoid unnecessary harassment, the complainant had paid the first installment. OP No.1 delivered the said vehicle to the complainant on 12.09.2021. Now OP No.1 is adamant to charge more amount from the complainant against his booked car on the ground that the price of August or September, 2021 Model of his booked vehicle has been increased and the complainant will have to pay the same for taking delivery of his booked vehicle. Due to non-delivery of the booked car, the complainant had to go to his work by arranging Taxi thereby causing agony, harassment and financial loss. OP No.2 is equally liable for the act and conduct the OP No.1 being the Head Office of Samrithi Hyundai. Legal notice dated 15.09.2021 served upon the OPs in the matter also did not yield any result.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.02.2022.   
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint; no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint; the present complaint is not maintainable qua OP No.2;  this Commission is not vested with territorial jurisdiction etc.  On merits, it has been stated that as the matter in dispute (i.e. late delivery of vehicle & on revised price) is strictly interse the complainant and OP No.1. Aspects of retail sale, servicing and repairing of vehicle is strictly interse the complainant and OP No. 1 and OP No.2 has unnecessarily been made a party to the present complaint. No money from the sale consideration of the vehicle was paid to OP No.2 or any kind of promise or assurance was given by it.  The complainant has concealed the material fact that it was agreed by him that price as on the date of delivery shall be applicable and also expected date of delivery was given to the complainant by OP No.1.  The liability of OP No.2 being the manufacturer of the Hyundai Cars is limited and extends to its performance and warranty obligations only that also as per warranty policy. Since, the complainant has not raised any allegations regarding the performance of the car no deficiency can be attributed against OP No.2. OP No.2, operates with all its dealers including OP No.1 on "principal-to-principal" basis and not on "Principal-To-Agent" basis thereby meaning that error/omission/misrepresentations etc, if any, at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-19 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Nitin Kumar Gupta, Assistant Manager (Legal and Secretarial) of OP No.2 Company- M/s Hyundai Motor Limited as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for OP No. 2 and have also carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP No.2
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that firstly by delaying the delivery of vehicle in question despite receiving huge amount, referred to above and secondly by enhancing the sale consideration of the vehicle in question prevailing at the time of delivery, instead of charging the same at the time of booking,  the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that since vide Order Booking Form dated 26.03.2021, Annexure OP-2/1, the complainant has agreed that the final price of the vehicle will be applicable at the time of delivery, as such now he cannot wriggle out of the same. He further submitted that even otherwise, because there is no allegation of any defect in the vehicle in question as such OP No.2 being manufacturer of the said vehicle has no role whatsoever in delay in delivery of the vehicle by OP No.1, with which it is working on principal to principal basis.  
9.           It is coming out from the record that the complainant had booked the vehicle in question vide Order Booking Form dated 26.03.2021, Annexure OP-2/1 on making payment of Rs.25,000/- as booking amount. In Annexure OP-2/1, the ex-showroom price of the vehicle in question is mentioned as Rs.11,77,800/- plus other charges like insurance, taxes, extended warranty, registration, accessories etc. totaling Rs.13,73,388/- and in this document, it has been clearly mentioned that the final price of the vehicle will be applicable at the time of delivery of 4 months. Not only that, even in Quotation of Hyundai dated 02.08.2021, Annexure C-8 also, the price of the vehicle in question has been mentioned as Rs.13,92,713/- inclusive of all (Total on Road). In the said document, it has been clearly written that PRICE WILL BE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY. Similar writing is found on  Quotation of Hyundai dated 03.08.2021, Annexure C-9  wherein the price of the vehicle in question has been mentioned as Rs.14,05,902/- inclusive of all (Total on Road)  that PRICE WILL BE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY. Under these circumstances, the plea taken by the complainant that he was not liable to make payment in respect of the vehicle in question, applicable at the time of delivery of the said vehicle on 09.08.2021, and on the other hand, is liable to make the then price of the vehicle at the time of booking thereof on 26.03.2021,  is devoid of merit.
10.           However, it is also an admitted fact that delivery of the vehicle in question was made on 12.09.2021, vide delivery receipt dated 12.9.2021, Annexure OP-2/2 whereas, on the other hand, vide Order Booking Form dated 26.03.2021, Annexure OP-2/1 it was promised that delivery of the vehicle will be made within four months i.e. latest by 25.07.2021. There is thus deficiency in providing service on the part of OP No.1 on this count, as it delayed the delivery of the vehicle and instead of 25.07.2021, the vehicle was delivered on 12.09.2021. At the same time, it is also significant to mention here that since OP No.2 has strongly relied on Order Booking Form dated 26.03.2021, Annexure OP-2/1 as per which, only an amount of Rs.25,000/- as booking was payable by the complainant, yet,  OP No.2 has failed to convince this Commission, as to how and why, OP No.1 has received amount of Rs.11,25,000/- on 09.08.2021 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.08.2021 from the complainant, before delivery of the vehicle in question, over and above, the booking amount. OP No.2 has failed to place on record any document to prove that OP No.1 was entitled to receive huge amount of Rs.11,25,000/- on 09.08.2021 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.08.2021 from the complainant, over and above, the booking amount before delivery date of the vehicle in question, especially, when delivery of the vehicle in question had been made to the complainant only on 12.09.2021. At the same time, this answer could have easily been given by OP No.1, yet, if preferred not to appear and defend this case, as a result of which it was proceeded against ex parte. Non appearance of OP No.1 to defend its case against the allegations leveled by the complainant itself draws an adverse inference that it has nothing to say in its defence. Under these circumstances, it is held that in the first instance by delaying the delivery of vehicle to the complainant and at the same time, receiving huge amount of Rs.11,25,000/- on 09.08.2021 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.08.2021 from the complainant, over and above, the booking amount before delivery date of the vehicle in question, amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice, for which  OP No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant suitably.  
11.           Since no deficiency in providing service has been proved on the part of OP No.2 therefore the complaint filed by the complainant against it is liable to be dismissed.
12.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and partly allow the same against OP No.1.  OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony & harassment to the complainant, deficiency in providing service and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which these amounts shall entail interest @6% p.a. from the date of default till realization.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.       

 Announced:- 03.04.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President