BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 132 of 2015.
Date of Institution : 23.7.2015
Date of Decision : 28.02.2017
Ranjeet Singh Maan aged about 23 years son of Bohar Singh, resident of VPO Lalbai, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Mukatsar (Punjab).
….Complainant.
Versus.
1. Shakti Motors Pvt. Limited, Chautala Road, Dabwali, District Sirsa, through its partner/ proprietor.
2. Shakti Motors Pvt. Limited (Maruti Suzuki Authorized Dealer), Dabwali Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its partner/ prop.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Old Palam Gurgaon Road, Manesar, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.
..…Opposite Parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA ………………………..PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Manoj Narula, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Puri, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 & 2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he was desirous to purchase one Maruti Suzuki car and for this purpose he visited to op no.1 and requested to issue quotation for Swift LDI car which was issued by op no.1 on 12.2.2015 of Rs.5,85,000/-. At that time, op no.1 also assured the complainant that if any sum will be deducted from the above said amount, the benefits of the same may be given to him. The complainant was also allured by op no.1 to provide other benefits at the time of its purchase. It is further averred that as per the quotation, the complainant issued a Bank draft of Punjab National Bank, Sirsa bearing No.UNE219255 dated 18.2.2015 for Rs.5,85,000/- and op no.1 assured the complainant for delivery of above said vehicle within 2-3 days. On 21.2.2015, the op no.1 handed over the above said car to the complainant and issued invoice/ bill No.VSL14000624 dated 21.2.2015 for Rs.5,61,640/-. In the above said invoice/ bill, the op no.1 has shown Rs.5,000/- as other charges without any explanation to the complainant. The ops no.1 & 2 are authorized dealers and op no.3 is manufacturing company of said car. That as and when the complainant requested the ops to tell about the above said Rs.5000/- shown as other charges, the op no.1 had not told anything about it rather threatened him by saying that he has no right to ask about said amount. Even, the ops have received excess amount of Rs.23,360/- from the complainant without any right or authority. It is further averred that as and when complainant demanded above said amount of Rs.23,360/- from the ops, they have not given proper reply to the complainant and his genuine request has been ignored without any rhyme or reason. The complainant is legally entitled to refund of Rs.23,360/- received by ops in excess alongwith amount of Rs.5000/- received by them under the name of other charges without any detail and explanation and thus he is entitled to total amount of Rs.28,360/- alongwith interest from the ops. The complainant served a legal notice upon ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 & 2 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It has also been submitted that complainant primarily understood the calculations and the price of the car etc. and thereafter he agreed to purchase the vehicle in question, as such the allurement of any kind is incorrect. The op no.2 has no concern or connection with the sale of vehicle. The op no.3 is the best person to reply on its behalf not the answering ops. The notice issued by complainant through his counsel was replied on 10.3.2015 and the whole situation was explained so that confusion may be rectified. Price of swift LDI at that time was Rs.5,78536/- and insurance charges were Rs.16,960/-, charges for the temporary certificate were Rs.700/-, MGA was of Rs.5700/-, as such grand total comes to Rs.6,01,896/- and thereafter discount was subtracted to the tune of Rs.16896/- and payable amount comes to Rs.585000/-. An amount of Rs.5000/- which was given by complainant at the time of booking was returned in cash to the complainant. Moreover, the invoice is subject to the income tax and all accounts are online, so any confusion or concealment in the maintaining of account is not possible. It has been further submitted that everything with regard to calculations was intimated to complainant whenever he made efforts to get it clear. Even at the present juncture if the complainant wants to get any quarry about calculations, answering ops are ready to furnish the same. The complainant has never demanded any amount back because he was got satisfied by the account branch. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.3 filed written statement and submitted that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and op no.3. The present complaint is not maintainable against the answering op. The op no.3 is the manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles and does not sell the vehicles so manufactured by it directly to any individual customer. The answering op sells the vehicles to its dealers under the dealership agreement. The dealer sells the vehicles to their customers under their own invoice and sale certificate as per the terms and conditions settled between the dealer and individual customer. The answering op is not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of dealer.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of letter dated 5.3.2015 Ex.C1, copy of counter sale retail invoice of Rs.5699 Ex.C2, copy of invoice Ex.C3, copy of proforma invoice Ex.C4, letter dated 18.2.2015 Ex.C5, copy of sale certificate Ex.C6, form-22 Ex.C7, copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex.C8, copy of policy schedule Ex.C9, copy of legal notice Ex.C10 and postal receipt Ex.C11. On the other hand, ops no.1 & 2 produced affidavit Ex.R1, copy of postal receipt Ex.R2 and reply to legal notice Ex.R3.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that on 15.2.2017 when the case was fixed for evidence of op no.3, none appeared on its behalf and as such op no.3 was proceeded against exparte.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The only question to decide the present complaint is whether the ops No.1 & 2 have charged excess amount from the complainant as alleged by him or not. To answer this question, we have carefully gone through evidence produced by both the parties. From copy of invoice Ex.C3 on the file, it is clear that price of Maruti Swift LDI car is Rs.4,92,057.66/-, vat @ 12.5% is Rs.61,507.20/-, surcharge on vat @ 5% is Rs.3075.36/- and total of these amounts comes to Rs.5,56,640.22/-. Whereas ops No.1 & 2 have issued the invoice Ex.C3 for total amount of Rs.5,61,640.00/- and included Rs.5000/- as other charges. Besides it, from Ex.C9 i.e. policy schedule, it is clear that complainant has been charged Rs.16,960/- as premium for insurance of the vehicle and from Ex.,C1 it is clear that an amount of Rs.700/- was charged for TRC plate and Rs.5700/- were charged as MGA and total of these amounts (Rs.5,56,640.22+Rs.16,960+Rs.700+Rs.5700) comes to Rs.5,80,000.22/-, but there is no explanation of other charges of Rs.5000/- claimed by ops no.1 & 2 vide invoice Ex.C3 and ops have charged an amount of Rs.5,85,000/- from the complainant. So, in our view the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.5000/- with interest from the date of deposit i.e. 21.2.2015.
8. Thus, we partly accept the present complaint qua ops no.1 & 2 with the direction to ops No.1 & 2 to refund an amount of Rs.5000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum from 21.2.2015 till actual payment to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the opposite parties no.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to the complainant as litigation charges. However, no liability of any type of op no.3 is made out. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 28.2.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
