| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 285 of 25.7.2017 Decided on: 6.4.2021 Jagpreet Singh aged about 40 years son of Sh.Harjeet Singh, resident of # 32, Raja Avenue, Fatak No.21, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - M/s Hemant Goyal Motors (P) Ltd., Rajpura Road, Opposite SST Nagar, Patiala through its Managing Director, Authorized dealer of TATA Motors, Zest , Bolt, Indigo, Safari, Strome, Nano.
- Tata Limited, Bombay House, 1st Floor, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort Mumbai, 400001, through its Managing Director.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Jatinder Singh, counsel for complainant. None for OP No.1. Smt.Baljeet Kaur, counsel for OP No.2. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Jagpreet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against M/s Hemant Goyal Motors and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
Facts of the complaint - Briefly the case of the complainant is that he wanted to purchase a new car make Tata Model Zest and accordingly he approached the OPs and demanded the quotation which was provided to him. As per proforma invoice No.649 dated21.12.2015 the same was for Rs.8.27.007/- which included car Cost Rs.7,45,955/-+ Rs.24334/- for insurance and Rs.56718/- for the road tax and for RC. The complainant got prepared the demand draft No.701343 on 22.12.2015 from Oriental Bank of Commerce for the said amount and handed over the same to the OPs but the bill dated 23.12.2015 was issued for Rs.670455/-. The tax receipt of the life time tax of the car and other charges for registration of the car is Rs.50245/-+ Rs.400/- for the registration + hypothecation fee and Rs.43/- for the smart card has been got deposited and Rs.23,939/- has been for insurance of the car and Rs.377/- charged for other expenses and the total after calculation comes to Rs.7,45,449/-.As such the OPs charges Rs.81558/- in excess from the complainant. The complainant made several requests to the OPs for the refund of the same but they always gave false assurances but till no amount has been refunded inspite of the fact letter dated 28.12.2015 was also wrote to Sh.Rattan Tata, Group Chairman of TATA Limited. The complainant also got sent legal notice upon the OPs but they did not respond. There is thus deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which make the complainant to suffer from mental agony and harassment. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.81558/- charges in excess alongwith interest from 23.12.2015 till payment and also to Rs.5,00,000 and damages and costs of complaint.
Reply/Written statement - Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statements.
- In the written statement filed by OP No.1 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and that no excess amount has been charged from the complainant.
- On merits it is submitted that the amount charged from the complainant was explained to him at the time of purchase on 21.12.2015 and detail of the same has also been handed over to him. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the OPs. After denying all other averments, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In the written statement filed by OP No.2 preliminary objections have been raised that the complainant has no cause of action against OP No.2; that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party.
- On merits also it is pleaded that no cause of action has arisen against the OP as the complainant has not approached the OP at the time of sale of the vehicle in question or paid any consideration to it. The OP denied all other averments and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
-
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand on behalf of OP No.1 Sh.Gulshan Kumar, HR Manager tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OPB and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Sharmendra Chaudhry, Manager Law and closed the evidence.
-
- The complainant has also filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant wanted to purchased a new Tata car model Zest , he approached the OPs and quotation of Rs.827007/- was given. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant purchased the car and handed over the demand draft of Rs.8,27,007/-to OP No.1 but OP No.1issued bill of Rs.745449/-.In this way the OPs have charged Rs.81558/- in excess from the complainant and the same be refunded back.
- The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that Rattan Tata has no concern with the alleged amount and it is OP No.1 who has received the same from the complainant, so the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this case, complainant Jagpreet Singh has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is an important document. This is the receipt of Hemant Goyal Motors in the name of Jagpreet Singh s/o Harjeet Singh dated 21.12.2015 in which total amount of Rs.827007/- has been shown which included the price of the car, insurance and the registration. Taking into consideration this receipt, draft Ex.C8 of Rs.8,27,007/- was paid to M/s Hemant Goyal Motor (P) Ltd. by the complainant.Ex.C3 is the receipt when the car was purchased and total amount of Rs.6,70,455/- has been shown,Ex.C4 is the registration certificate,Ex.C5 is insurance cover,Ex.C6 is legal notice,Ex.C7 postal receipts,Ex.C9 is the Motor Vehicle Tax.
- On the other hand on behalf of Rattan Tata, Sharmendra Chaudhry has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written statement.
- In the present case, the main allegations are against OP No.1..As already stated above, as per the quotation total amount has been shown as Rs.8,27,007/- and taking into consideration this quotation, the draft Ex.C8 was issued by the complainant which was accepted by OP No.1 but after that at the time of purchase receipt, Ex.C3 was issued for Rs.6,70,455/-.Other charges of Rs.50245/-for registration certificate+ Rs.400/- for hypothecation, Rs.43/- for smart card, Rs.23939/- as insurance and Rs.377/- for other expenses i.e. in total Rs.745449/- were charged from the complainant but as per the draft the total amount of Rs.827007/- was paid by the complainant. So the OP No.1 has charged Rs.81558/- in excess from the complainant.
- So due to our above discussion the complaint stands allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.81558/- to the complainant along with interest @6% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.25000/-as compensation and also to pay Rs.25000/-as costs of litigation. Compliance of the order be made by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:6.4.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
