Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/545

Inderpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandhu Automobiles Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ankur Ghai Adv.

09 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 545 dated 26.11.2019.       

                                                Date of decision: 09.01.2023. 

 

Inderpal Singh Sabharwal, resident of House No.195-D, B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab                                                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Sandhu Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana through Managing Director Ajay Pal Sandhu
2.  
2. Ajay Pal Sandhu, Managing Director, Sandhu Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.
3. Karampal Sandhu, Director, Sandhu Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.
4.  Sukhbirinder Kaur, Director, Sandhu Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana
5. Vinod Gupta, Salesman cum Clerk, Sandhu Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana
6. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director.                                                                                                          …..Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ankur Ghai, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. Vikram Monga, Advocate.

For OP3 to OP5             :         Complaint against OP3 to OP5 not admitted                                                         vide order dated 13.12.2019.

For OP6                         :         None for OP6. (Written statement already                                                    received by post).

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In nutshell, the facts of the case are that opposite party No.2 is the managing director of opposite party No.1 who is the authorized dealer of Maruti Nexa i.e. opposite party No.6, having its office at Ludhiana. Opposite party No.3 and 4 are the directors of opposite party No.1 whereas opposite party No.5 is employee of opposite party No.1. The complainant was looking for sale of his old car Maruti Suzuki Alto (2011) and purchase of new car i.e. Maruti Suzuki Cias for which opposite party No.5 approached the complainant and proclaimed that opposite parties are the leading authorized dealer of Maruti Nexa in Ludhiana. Opposite party No.5 further claimed and represented that opposite party will provide the vehicle at most competent prices as compared to other dealers at Ludhiana and shall also provide superior and fairer services than the other dealers at Ludhiana and will also provide maximum discount applicable, available and would also provide the best return for the old vehicle. Acting upon the representation of opposite party, the complainant decided to purchase new vehicle from the opposite parties. It was also represented that the Maruti Ciaz Smart Hybrid/Delta (Petrol) would be the best choice for him and the company is providing numerous discount offers on the said vehicle. They also represented that the complainant would also be covered under Corporate scheme for the lawyer for which a discount of Rs.10000/- is offered by the company being self employed professional. They also represented that the complainant would be entitled to loyalty bonus of Rs.25000/- in the deal as the old vehicle of the complainant was Maruti Alto (2011 model) and the company would further give discount of Rs.25,000/- on the new vehicle. The complainant further submitted that he decided and agreed to purchase the vehicle Maruti Suzuki Ciaz Smart Hybrid/Delta from opposite party No.1 to 5 and got the booking done for the vehicle in Met. Magma Gray Colour on 05.04.2019 by paying advance of Rs.11,000/-. As per the understanding, the complainant paid sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  vide cheque dated 11.04.2019 in favour of opposite party No.1 drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank and another cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- dated 11.04.2019 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank in favour of opposite party No.1. The old vehicle of the complainant was to be adjusted to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- as per delivery receipt dated 12.04.2019. The complainant also paid Rs.5,00,000/- through bank transfer as per loan approval by the bank. The complainant transferred Rs.9,36,000/- to opposite party No.1 to 5 on 12.04.2019. However, on the date of delivery i.e. 12.04.2019, the complainant was made to wait for 3 hours due to mismanagement, mishandling on the part of the opposite parties and ultimately he received the vehicle on 12.04.2019 in late evening hours and the vehicle was delivered bearing registration No.PB-10-HB-1976. However, the complainant was given only receipt relating to giving of cheques and was told to collect the invoice and other documents in a couple of days. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 to 5 and requested to provide invoice, RC and other necessary documents but they started evading the matter. The complainant was given invoice No.011/VS/19000020 dated 11.04.2019 after some days reflecting the entries against promise, understanding and undertaking between the parties. It is reflected in the invoice that discount of Rs.17241.38 has been given on account of company discount against the promise discount of Rs.25,000/-, discount of loyalty bonus was given to the tune of Rs.17,241.38 instead of Rs.25,000/-. No discount/cash benefit of corporate scheme/self employed professional to the tune of Rs.10,000/- was extended and the opposite party No.1 to 5 have given less credit of Rs.25,500/- approximately. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1 to 5 and requested to correct the invoice and sought the details of adjustments made on the payment given upon which they started evading the questions on the pretext that they are looking into the matter. Later on, the complainant came to know that as against the promised credit of Rs.2,25,000/- for the old vehicle bearing No.PB-10-DD-5763, opposite party had given credit of Rs.2,00,000/- only. Thus on 12.04.2019, opposite party No.1 to 5 have given less credit of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant against the promise as we as credit professional scheme to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Opposite party also obtained Rs.57,243/- from the complainant for registration certificate but opposite party No.1 to 5 started dilly delaying the matter and started claiming that the documents were not yet ready and not prepared by the department of RTA, Ludhiana. Opposite party No.1 to 5 asked the complainant to wait and also assured that the above less credit given to him would be duly credited when RC would be delivered. In May 2019, opposite party No.5 approached the complainant and demand Rs.5000/- for providing RC and other documents and assured that to get the credit of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant but the complainant got infuriated and decided to approach opposite party No.1 to 4. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 to 4 and brought the said fact into their knowledge but they were unmoved and directed him to respect the demand made by opposite party No.5. The complainant vide his complaints to opposite party No.6 regarding the illegal acts of opposite party No.1 to 5 on 11.09.2019, 13.09.2019 and 23.10.2019 and has been running from pillar to post but no action has been taken by the opposite parties and all the opposite parties are hand in glove with each other.  Due to non-handing of the RC, the complainant had to hire private cab for his professional visit to High Court of Punjab and Haryana as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at Delhi. It has been further submitted that on 04.08.2017, the complainant took the vehicle to service centre on routine basis and received thanks giving messages on his email. He was shocked to receive a letter dated 08.11.2019 wherein a sum of Rs.17,120/- was shown outstanding towards the complainant and it was stated in the said letter that the RC would be delivered on payment of Rs.17,120/- by the complainant to opposite party No.1. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1 to 5 and called upon them to immediately credit the sum due towards him and to provide him the RC with other necessary documents but they refused to accede to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 11.11.2019 to the opposite parties but to no avail. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has sought direction to the opposite parties to issue correct invoices, deliver the RC and further to refund Rs.50,000/- along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-.

2.                The complaint was not admitted as against opposite party No.3 to 5 vide order dated 13.12.2019.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is false and vexatious and has been filed to malign the reputation of opposite party company. The complaint is bad in law and is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Opposite party No.1 and 2 submitted that on 11.04.2019, the complainant approached their showroom for the delivery8 of Maruti Ciaz Smart Hybrid car Delta Mode, Met. Magma Gray colour and booked the vehicle on 11.04.2019. As per the deal, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was to be given as a consumer offer along with exchange of his old Alto white car No.PB-10-DD-5763 with maximum exchange price of Rs.2,25,000/- including loyalty bonus. Opposite parties as a goodwill gesture provided Maruti Guaranteed Accessories (MGA)  of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant free of cost. The ex-showroom price of the vehicle is Rs.8,81,630/-  and in addition to it of issuance of Rs.37,082/- and registration charges of Rs.57,243/-, cow cess of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1180/- for my Nexa card was charged having total amount of Rs.9,78,120/-. Opposite party No.1 and 2 received Rs.5,00,000/- as loan amount,  Rs.2,00,000/- received through two cheques No.80 and 81 dated 11.04.2019 and Rs.11,000/- through receipt no.30 dated 05.04.2019. The old car was adjusted to the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.25,000/- loyalty bonus inclusive of applicable taxes) and Rs.25,000/- discount was given to the complainant as a consumer offer  (inclusive of applicable taxes) and in all a sum of Rs.9,61,000/- was adjusted as received from the complainant against total receipt of Rs.9,78,120/- and a balance of Rs.17,120/- is still due towards the complainant. The invoice dated 11.04.2019 was prepared and handed over to the complainant at the time of delivery of the car which the complainant checked and signed the same admitting it to be correct. However, the complainant did not pay the remaining due amount of Rs.17,120/- despite telephonic call and persona visit as well as through reminder letter. A detailed reply dated 09.12.2019 has been given to the notice of the complainant and he has concealed the factum of said reply in his complaint.

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 and 2 reiterated the facts stated in preliminary objections. Opposite party No.1 and 2 admitted the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- received through cheque, Rs.5,00,000/- as loan amount, Rs.2,00,000/- as adjustment of the car exchange, Rs.25,000/- given as loyalty bonus. Opposite party No.1 and 2 has denied the other averments of the complaint and also denied the deficiency of service on their part. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                Opposite party No.6 sent written statement by post by taking preliminary objections/submissions that the complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed in limine against it.  Opposite party No.6 further submitted that it is not liable for any act or omission, if any, of the dealer/s who are independent and separate legal entities having their own MOA and AOA. The relationship between the dealer and the opposite party is on principle to principle basis as per dealer agreement executed between the parties. As per Clause 3(C) of the Dealership Agreement  “It is made clear that Maruti Suzuki India td. (MSIL) would sell products and parts to the Dealer on a principle to principle basis. Further as per Clause of the agreement states that “Nothing in this agreement shall made or be deemed to make the Dealer the agent or Representative of MSIL for any purpose and the Dealer shall not describe or represent itself as such.” Opposite party No.6 further stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant has neither purchased the vehicle in question nor made any payment to it. As such, opposite party No.2 has no role in the sale/purchase transaction of the vehicle with the complainant as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.6. Opposite party No.6 sells its products to its dealer/s who in turn sells it to the customers under their own invoice.

                   On merits, opposite party No.6 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections/submissions. Opposite party No.6 denied the other averments of the complaint and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 copy of invoice of Rs.11,000/-, Ex. C2 and Ex. C3 are the copies of receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- each dated 11.04.2019 respectively, Ex. C4 is the copy of certificate cum policy schedule, Ex. C5 is the copy of receipt dated 11.04.2019 of Rs.8,31,630.36, Ex. C6 is the copy of ledger account from 01.01.2014 to 12.09.2019, Ex. C7 is the copy of delivery receipt, Ex. C8 is the letter dated 08.11.2019 sent to the complainant, Ex. C9 is the legal notice dated 11.11.2019, Ex. C10 to Ex. C16 are the postal receipts and  closed the evidence.  

6.                On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.1 and 2  submitted affidavit Ex. RA of opposite party No.2 Sh. Ajay Pal Singh Sandhu, Managing Director of opposite party No.1 along with documents Ex. D1 copy of retail sales order form dated 11.04.2019, Ex. D2 copy of the receipt of Rs.8,31,630.36 dated 11.04.2019, Ex. D3 is the copy of receipt  of Rs.11,000/-, Ex. D4 and Ex. D5 are the copies of receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- each dated 11.04.2019 respectively, Ex. D6 is the copy of edger account from 01.01.2014 to 14.11.2019, Ex. D7 is the joint reply to legal notice dated 11.11.2019, Ex. D8 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. D9 is the resolution of Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. dated 09.12.2020 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply filed on record by both the parties. None has been appearing in this case on behalf of opposite party No.6 since 12.02.2020.

8.                The complainant, a practicing Advocate at Ludhiana, was looking to replace his old vehicle Maruti Suzuki Alto (2011) with purchase of new vehicle and then opposite party No.5, a representative of opposite party No.1 approached the complainant and assured and represented him that the vehicle Maruti Ciaz Smart Hybrid/Delta (Petrol) would be the best choice and the complainant would be covered under corporate scheme for lawyers for which a discount of Rs.10,000/- is being offered by them being self employed professional. Official of the opposite parties also represented that he will be entitled to loyalty bonus of Rs.25,000/-  and further an additional discount of Rs.25,000/- on the purchase of new vehicle. Acting upon the representations of the opposite parties, the complainant  paid an advance of Rs.11,000/- as booking amount on 05.04.2019 and subsequently, till 12.04.2019 the remaining sale consideration was also paid. The complainant received the delivery of the said vehicle in the late evening hours on 12.04.2019 having registration No.PB-10-HB-1976. The complainant was given the receipt regarding the payment of cheques and he was asked to collect the invoice and other documents within a couple of days. After few days, when the complainant received the documents, he found that Rs.17,241.38 each was given instead of promised loyalty bonus and additional discount of Rs.25,000/- each and further no cash benefit of corporate scheme for self employed professional to the tune of Rs.10,000/- has been extended to the complainant. Further the complainant found that he has given a credit of Rs.2,00,000/- only instead of Rs.2,25,000/- as sale against the old vehicle. In this manner, the opposite parties have given less credit of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties and expressed his grievance and also demanded the registration certificate of the car but they kept the matter pending. Even the representations dated 11.09.2019, 13.09.2019 and 23.10.2019 failed to yield the desired results.

9.                The counsel for opposite party No.1 and 2 has contended that the discount with regard to offers were given to the complainants which were inclusive of applicable taxes. Rather an amount of Rs.17,120/- is still outstanding towards the complainant.  However, it is no case of the opposite parties that at the time of making the representations with regard to the offers, the complainant was made aware of the fact that these offers are subject to the applicable taxes. Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act enlists various rights of the consumer and it includes the right to be informed about the product and services so to protect the consumer against the unfair trade practices. Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act being one of the longest definition of the Act also provides that various instances which amounts to unfair trade practice, making false representations with regard to goods and services is also covered under the said act. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the complaint is allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 and 2 to deliver the registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant and also to refund Rs.50,000/-, the amount less paid to the complainant along with composite compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 and 2 to deliver/hand over the registration certificate of the complainant and also to refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order its actual payment. Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.6 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                                  President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Inderpal Singh Vs Sandhu Automobiles                         CC/19/545

Present:       Sh. Ankur Ghai, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Vikram Monga, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   Complaint against OP3 to OP5 not admitted vide order dated                      13.12.2019.

                   None for OP6 (Written statement already received by post).

 

                   None turned up for OP6 today also. None has been appearing on behalf of OP6 since 12.02.2020.                   

                   Arguments of counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and 2 heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to opposite party No.1 and 2 to deliver/hand over the registration certificate of the complainant and also to refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order its actual payment. Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.6 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

(Monika Bhagat)                             (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                                  President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.