Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 138.
Instituted on : 01.07.2013.
Decided on : 02.02.2017.
Inder Nath Chugh, Manager, Adarsh High School, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Satyam Toyota (A unit of Satyam Autoserve Pvt. Ltd.) Bangur Cinema, Hissar Road, Rohtak through its Branch Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Deepak Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Madhur Arora, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had arranged the marriage of his son Rohit on 31.01.2013 and in order to gift his son the Toyota Fortuner complainant approached opposite party for purchase of the same and the opposite party assured the complainant to deliver the same before 30th January 2013. It is averred that on the assurance of opposite party complainant had deposited the sum of Rs.300000/- on 18.12.2012 and the complainant was further directed by the opposite party to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.2105267/- at the time of delivery and on 10.01.2013 the complainant was told that he would be given some accessories free of cost. It is averred that since the time of booking the car, complainant had made several calls to the opposite party to deliver the car but the opposite party directed the complainant to first deposit the balance amount of payment but the car was not delivered to the complainant despite the assurances given by the opposite party and the complainant had faced great humiliation and embarrassment in front of all the relatives. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite party to cancel the booking of car and to return the amount deposited but the opposite party showed its inability and felt sorry for the delay and assured the complainant to some more accessories and other facilities free of cost and it was fixed to be delivered on 02.02.2013 at the time of reception function of his son but this time also the opposite party failed to keep its words and caused great embarrassment to him. It is averred that on 05.05.2013 the car was delivered to the complainant without any information and the complainant accepted the delivery of car under protest. It is averred that apart from all the humiliation, the opposite party had charged an extra amount of Rs.53917/- from the complainant and the representative of the opposite party had assured to refund the same but till date the alleged amount has not been refunded to the complainant. It is averred that complainant had also made two written complaints to the head office of opposite party dated 06.02.2013 and 27.02.2013 respectively but till date nothing has been done. It is averred that complainant also sent a legal notice dated 06.02.2013 to pay back the amount of Rs.53917/- but till date no reply has been received. It is averred that the act and conduct of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.53917/- with interest and to provide all the accessories free of cost as assured by the opposite party and to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for causing undue embarrassment, humiliation and disgrace to the complainant.
2. On notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that in the present case as per the special request of the complainant the said car was delivered to the complainant at his residence. Having taken delivery to his satisfaction and having made payment for the same, the complainant cannot now be heard to say anything to the contrary. It is averred that there is no procedure nor provision for promising delivery on any given date such as is being falsely alleged by the complainant. The fact remains that the complainant paid for a motor-vehicle which was duly delivered to him in satisfactory condition. There is no basis for any claim or grievance that the complainant has now. It is averred that all the other allegations and averments of the complainant unless specifically admitted, are wrong and denied.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. Ex.CW1/A is affidavit of the complainant whereby the complainant has reiterated the version of his complaint on oath. Ex.C1 is the copy of booking form. As per the quotation Ex.C2, the Ex. Showroom price of vehicle is Rs.2260860/- and total amount of vehicle including the Handling charges, insurance and Temp. Registration is Rs.2351622/-. As per retail invoice Ex.C3 also the price of vehicle is Rs.2260861/-. As per the receipt Ex.C6 dated 19.12.2012, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.300000/- as booking amount. As per commitment check list Ex.C8, the total price of car has been shown as Rs.2351622/- and Rs.53501/- has been shown as discount. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the no discount was given to the complainant and an amount of Rs.53917/- has been charged in excess from the complainant. Complainant had also served a legal notice Ex.C7 through his counsel but the same was not replied. On the other hand, contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party is that no excess amount has been charged from the complainant and the complainant is not entitled for any relief. To prove his case, opposite party has placed on record copy of document Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the document Ex.C2 and Ex.C8, the total price of car has been shown as Rs.2351622/- including the vehicle cost Rs.2260860/-, insurance charges Rs.85112/-, No. Plate charges Rs.5550/- and Rs.100/- as Temp. Registration Charges. As per this document Ex.C8, an amount of Rs.53501/- has been shown as discount. The total amount of car was Rs.2351622/- whereas the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.300000/- in advance and Rs.2105267/- were deposited lateron. In this way the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.2405267/- against the total amount of Rs.2351622/- which shows that an amount of Rs.53645/- has been charged in excess from the complainant by the opposite party. On the other hand, as per the documents placed on record by the opposite party, Ex.R1 is the detail of amount charged from the complainant and Ex.R2 is the Tax Invoice dated 23.02.2013 which does not prove that the price of vehicle was Rs.2405267/-. Moreover these documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 are not supported with affidavit of the opposite party. As such as per the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is proved that the opposite party has charged an amount of Rs.53645/- in excess from the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.53645/-(Rupees fifty three thousand six hundred forty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date filing the present complaint i.e. 01.07.2013 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the alleged amount from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.02.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
