Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/28/2018

Parshotam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Skoda India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Maninder S Saini, Adv.

02 Nov 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Complaint case No.	:	28 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	16.01.2018
Date of Decision	:	02.11.2018

 

Parshotam Singh s/o S. Raghbir Singh, resident of House No.2410, Sector 35, U.T., Chandigarh.

…… Complainant

V e r s u s

1. Skoda India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director/President, A-1/1, M.I.D.C., Five Star Industrial Area, Shendra, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, PIN-431201.
2. Krishana Auto Sales, through its Managing Director/Director/CEO Office Address Plot No.177E, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                      MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                      MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-      Sh.M.S.Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.2.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased a car, make Skoda Octavia-2017 (variant Octavia Ambition), from opposite party no.2 (dealer), which was manufactured by opposite party no.1. The car purchased was a base model, which was a new version, launched in the year 2017. He paid an amount of Rs.17,56,974/- towards price of the said car. Booking was made prior to the date of purchase, by making payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/- and balance amount was paid at the time of delivery of the said car i.e. on 02.08.2017. It is the case of the complainant that before purchasing the said car, he went to showroom owned by opposite party no.2 (dealer). On enquiry, he was told about salient features of the car, in question. Brochure showing features of three variants of the car namely Octavia Ambition, Octavia Style and Octavia Style Plus, was handed over to him. He was further told that features shown in the said brochure are available in all the three variants of the car, respectively. It was further told that variant Octavia Ambition, was not available in the showroom. He was put to test drive in a car variant Octavia Style Plus. He was assured by representative of the dealer that base model of the car will be equipped with all the features, as are reflected in the brochure supplied, against respective variants. On that very day, he was informed that variant of the car bought for him, is available for delivery. On receiving intimation, the entire payment was made and delivery of the car was taken. It is necessary to add that before taking delivery and after making the booking, the complainant sent an email dated 02.08.2017, Annexure C-1 to opposite party no.1 intimating that he was made to test driven the end model (Octavia Style Plus) of the car, he further asked the Company as to whether features shown in the brochure will be available in the base model or not.  Proper reply was not given. It was only stated that to address his query, he should supply name of the dealer with whom, he has booked the said car.

                It is case of the complainant that whatever features were available or were not available in all the three models/variant respectively, those were shown in the brochure. It was specifically stated by representative of the opposite parties that following features will be available in the base model of the car i.e. in Octavia Ambition:-

1. Steering mounted audio control,
2. Remote controlled closing of door mirrors,
3. Air quality sensor,
4. Bounce back system,
5. Telephone control on steering wheel and,
6. Multi collusion break.

It is further case of the complainant that he received intimation that the car was ready for delivery on Wednesday. Since, the said day is taken as auspicious day, as such, he wanted to receive delivery of the car, on that very day. Car loan was raised and entire payment was made to the dealer/opposite party no.2. The complainant when went to take delivery of the car, he noticed that some features were not available therein. He put it to the notice of Sales Representative of opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 tried to pass buck to opposite party no.1, stating that those features were wrongly shown in the variant Octavia Ambition, in the brochure. Thereafter, correspondence took place between the parties, however without any result. Matter was even taken up with customer care centre of opposite party no.1. Thereafter, legal notice was sent by the complainant to the opposite parties on 01.09.2017, however, no reply was received. His grievance was not redressed. By stating that there was deficiency in providing service on the part of the opposite parties, by wrongly showing in the brochure that the features referred to above are provided in the variant Octavia Ambition (base model), whereas, those were not available. Hence this complaint was filed by the complainant, wherein prayer was made to refund the amount paid towards price of the car; payment of compensation for harassment, deficiency in providing service, etc.

2.         In its reply filed, opposite party no.1 pleaded that this Commission did not vest with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. It was stated that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are working on principal to principal basis. Opposite party no.1 did not receive any payment from the complainant. Opposite party no.2 is an authorized dealer of opposite party no.1 Invoice was raised by opposite party no.2 against which car was sold by it, to the complainant. It was averred that once delivery of the car was taken by writing a note that the car was in a good condition, after that, objections qua non availability of features aforesaid, cannot be raised. As per feed back given by son of the complainant, it has rated performance of the said car as ‘Excellent”. It was stated that when the car was sold, all the features were shown to the complainant and thereupon, delivery was given. However, at that time, no objection was raised.

                On merits, sale of the car was admitted. It was pleaded that base price of the car was Rs.11,88,793/- plus Rs.5,11,181/- towards GST, totaling to Rs.17,16,974/-. To bring his case before this Commission, unnecessary amount has been added, in the relief sought.

3.         On the same lines, reply was filed by opposite party no.2. Factual position of the case was not disputed. It was only stated that when delivery of car, in question, was given to the complainant, all the features were checked up by him and no objection was raised. Prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their case.
5.         We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully. 
6.         After issuance of notice of motion, to know, as to whether features complained of, are present in the car or not, this Commission vide order dated 05.04.2018, directed opposite party no.1 to send some responsible Officer/Engineer to apprise about utility/usability of the features not available in the car purchased. None came present on the date fixed. Again, directions were issued on 10.05.2017. Similar directions were again issued on 12.06.2018, whereupon, on 10.07.2018, Sh. Amit Chhabra, Senior Manager of opposite party no.1 put in appearance. He stated that non-availability of some of the features can be ascertained only after inspection of the car, in question, under proper procedure. Sh. Amit Chhabra, was asked to file an affidavit. On the next day, it was stated that the car purchased needs checking through VAS system. Accordingly, the vehicle was taken to the workshop and it was checked. Sh. Amit Chhabra, Senior Manager of opposite party no.1 was asked to put on record his affidavit, which he did on 27.09.2018, before hearing arguments. On the basis of checking the car, following observations were made in the affidavit filed by him, qua availability of the features and also missing features, in the car purchased:-

1. Steering mounted audio control- Not available in the car
2. Remote control closing of door mirrors- Not available in the car
3. Air quality sensor- Available in the car
4. Bounce back system- Available in the car
5. Telephone control on steering wheel - Not available in the car
6. Multi collusion break- Available in the car

               

                It was candidly admitted that steering mounted audio control; remote control closing of door mirrors and telephone control on steering wheel were not available in the car, in question. An attempt was made to say by Counsel for the opposite parties that there was no promise to provide these features in the car, which this Commission feels, run contrary to the promise made in the brochure published by the opposite parties showing salient features of three variants of the Skoda car, referred to above. We have perused the said brochure (Annexure C-7, at pages 31 to 37), which is available on record. It is specifically mentioned at page 32 that Ambition make/model of the car will have remote control closing of door mirrors; audio control on steering wheel and telephone controls on multi-function steering wheel.  

                It is positive case of the complainant that all these features were not available in the car. The opposite parties have failed to place on record any change made in the brochure issued by the Company before sale of the car to the complainant. It was only stated that the Company was at liberty to change specifications without any notice to the intending purchasers. Be that as it may, it is positive case of the complainant that he was not given test drive in the car purchased by him. Rather high-end model car was offered for test drive. By raising his grievance through various emails and by sending legal notice, which was never replied, the complainant has shown his concern, qua non availability of some features in the car, which were otherwise, shown to be available, in the brochure issued. Merely because at the time of taking delivery of the car, no objection was raised is not a ground to deny relief to the complainant. A person intending to purchase a new car, on auspicious day, will go to the showroom, by telling his family members. He is supposed to be in a hurry and might not check all the features, while believing the commitments made vide brochure and also witnessed through test drive and furthermore, even if found that some features are lacking, under pressure of having been made payment, he is bound to take delivery thereof. It appears to have been happened in this case also. We clearly find that by making representations in the brochure and not providing those features in the car, unfair trade practice has been adopted by the opposite parties. Despite issuance of legal notice and taking up the matter with Customer Care Centre of the opposite parties, grievance of the complainant was not addressed and that also amounts to providing deficient service.

7.         The next question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this Commission is vested with pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint or not. It may be stated here that as per Section 17 (1) (a) of the Act, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain any complaint, complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. It was also so elucidated elaborately by a Full Bench of the National Commission in the case titled as Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Consumer Case No.97 of 2016, decided on 07.10.2016.  In the present case also, the complainant has sought directions either to install the missing features of the car, in question and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs and/or in the alternative, to refund the amount of Rs.17,56,973/- paid by him towards price of the said car alongwith interest @18% p.a. and also Rs.2 lacs towards compensation. It is settled law that, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction, both reliefs, main and also the alternative one, is to be taken into consideration. It was so said by the National Commission, in the case titled as Dushyant Kumar Gupta Vs. Today Homes & Infrastructure Private Limited, Consumer Case No. 198 of 2015, decided on 31 Jan 2017.  Relevant part of the said order reads thus:-

“In a complaint where the complainant makes alternative prayers, one for possession of the house allotted / plot to him and the other for refund of the amount paid by him to the developer along with compensation, this Commission would have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint where either the relief of possession or the relief of refund, alongwith the compensation as calculated in terms of para-5 hereinabove falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Since in such a case, the State Commission will not have the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to grant one of the alternative reliefs claimed in the complaint, the complainant cannot be asked to approach the said Commission.”

                Under above circumstances, if aggregate value of relief claimed, main and also the alternative, is added, it exceeds Rs.20 lacs. Thus, this Commission has got pecuniary Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. Objection taken by the opposite parties, that this Commission lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands rejected.

8.         Now we will see, as to whether the complainant was justified in seeking refund of amount paid, towards price of the said car. It may be stated here that it is not a case of manufacturing defect in the car. It is only that some features, referred to above, are missing. Those features are also not very vital to run a car. Those appears only meant for making ride more comfortable. At the same time, the car is already running from the date of purchase and there is no complaint qua its performance. In view of above, we allow this complaint partly, and are of the considered opinion that grievance of the complainant can be addressed by granting him some compensation. We assess compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to make good deficiency of some features in the car. We further grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant; deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, and also litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.33,000/-. The awarded amount shall be paid by the opposite parties, jointly and severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, it shall entail interest @9% p.a., from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.    
9.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

02.11.2018

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K.ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg.