Date of filing:10-06-2013
Date of Disposal:03-06-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday, the 3rd day of June, 2014
C.C.NO.56/2013
Between:
Smt.G.Sri Vani
W/o G.Sudharshan
D.No.6-3-237,
Ram Nagar
Ananthapuramu. … Complainant
Vs.
- Sri Durga Automotives
rep. by its Managing Partner,
Dealers of Maruthi Suzuki
Vehicles, 17/377-A, Gooty Road
Ananthapuramu.
- Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd.,
rep. by its Secretary, Palam
Gurgaon Road, Guragaon,
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Krishna Swamy Kumar, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, Advocate for the 1stopposite party and 2nd opposite party in person and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.63,000/- towards total offer amount on the car and Rs.5,334/- towards interest @ 12% p.a. from 26-09-2012 to 10-06-2013 in total Rs.68,334/- with future interest @ 12% p.a. and costs of the complaint and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a permanent resident of Ananthapuramu and she has purchased Maruthi Wagon R LXI DUO BS IV WRMLCS100 Model car from the 1st opposite party on exchange basis. She booked the car on 06-09-2012 and took delivery of the same on 26-09-2012. She paid a total amount of Rs.4,56,839/- towards Ex-showroom price of the car , life tax, insurance and temporary registration. During this period there was an offer of rebate to the extent of Rs.63,000/- on the model of this car . In a daily paper Eeenadu dt.20-09-2012 there was an advertisement by the 2ndopposite party company in which the name of 1st opposite party was also mentioned. The following offers were made – Consumer Offer Rs.35,000/-, Exchange Offer Rs.25,000/- and Corporate Offer Rs.3,000/- total offer of Rs.63,000/-. The above said offer subsisted till 30-09-2012. Both the payment of price and delivery of the car took place before the closure of the above offer. The complainant exchanged her old Maruthi Alto Model car with 1st opposite party. Thus she is entitled to the above said total offer of Rs.63,000/- . At the time of delivery, the complainant demanded the 1st opposite party to extend this offer to her. They have promised to refund the amount within a few days. The 1st opposite party issued sales invoice on 05-10-2012 for repayment though the car was delivered to the complainant on 26-09-2012. When the complainant demanded for refund of the offer amount of Rs.63,000/-, the 1st opposite party agreed to refund the same but was postponing the refund on one pretext or the other. At the end of March, 2013, the 1st opposite party refused to refund the offer amount stating that the invoice date is 05-10-2012 which is after the closure of the offer. This clearly depicted their unfair trade practice as they have deliberately issued the invoice on 05-10-2012 though the delivery was made on 26-09-2012. Then the complainant got issued legal notice on 03-04-2013 calling upon the 1st opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.63,000/- with interest thereon, but the 1st opposite party replied on 14-04-2013 by mentioning false facts and figures. The 1st opposite party fabricated copy of the sales invoice with cooked up figures. The enquires of the complainant with the Commercial Tax Department revealed that the 1st opposite party paid VAT of Rs.49,907/-, whereas in the invoice which was mentioned as Rs.54,339/-. This clearly depicts that 1st opposite party would go to any extent to support their case. The refusal of the refund of amount by the 1st opposite party is deficiency of service and the complainant is entitled the compensation as claimed. Hence this complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party filed a counter stating that the contention of the complainant that she purchased Maruti Wagon R LXI Duo BS IV – WRMLCS 100 Model car from the 1st opposite party on exchange basis is partly true, but the complainant has purchased the above model car with Wagon R Pro Limited Edition Kit. The further contention that the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.4,56,839/- towards Ex-show-room price of the car , life tax, insurance and temporary registration is false. It is true that on 20-09-2012 there was an advertisement given by 1st opposite party wherein an offer was made for different brands of Maruthi Suzuki Cars which includes Wagon R brand for which a consumer offer of Rs.35,000/-, Exchange officer of Rs.25,000/- and Corporate offer of Rs.3,000/- was made and in the same advertisement it was clearly mentioned that terms and conditions apply. The 1st opposite party contended that the payment of price and delivery of car took place before closer of the offer is absolutely false. The allegation of the complainant that she exchanged her old Maruti Alto Car with 1st opposite party and hence she is entitled to the total offer of Rs.63,000/- is wrong. It is also wrong that at the time of delivery the 1stopposite party promised to refund of the above offer amount. The further allegation that the 1st opposite party issued the sales invoice on 05-10-2012 is also false and denied. The further allegation that at the end of March, 2013 the 1st opposite party refused to refund the offer amount though the complainant demanded several times is also false. The 1st opposite party also mentioned that there was no unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party and the reasons are best known by the complainant for not taking delivery before 26-09-2012. The allegation of the complainant that the 1st opposite party fabricated the copy of the sales invoice with cooked up figures and fabricated invoice, for example VAT amount has been mentioned as Rs.54,339/- whereas in original invoice the amount was mentioned as Rs.49,907,48 is false and untenable. Actually the 1st opposite party paid VAT amount of Rs.49,907/- as per invoice amount. The 1st opposite party mentioned that it is very evident from the complaint that the complainant has made booking of the car on 06-09-2012 and exchanged her used Maruti Alto Car on the same day. It is also clear from the averments of the complaint that on the date of her booking of the car there was no advertisement nor there the offer on the vehicle. Therefore, on the date of booking of the car i.e. on the date when the complainant entered into sale transaction there was no sale offer existing on that day. The advertisement was issued only on 20-09-2012. By that date the entire sale transaction was completed. The 1st opposite party submitted that on 06-09-2012 itself the complainant has exchanged her used Maruti Alto car and the same was valued on the same day and the value was arrived at Rs.2,25,000/-. At the request of the complainant, the 1st opposite party has given exchange bonus of Rs.25,000/- and for the remaining amount of the total value of Wagon R Duo Pro Kit Car, HDFC Bank has financed the vehicle. On 13-09-2012 the 1st opposite party received an amount of Rs.2,84,716/- from HDFC Bank towards the remaining total value of the new car booked by the complainant. The husband of the complainant by name Sudarshan has made repeated requests for cash discount and corporate discount on the total value of the new car. The 1st opposite party accepted the requests of the complainant’s husband and given total cash discount of Rs.44,000/- and corporate discount of Rs.2,000/- and the same was transferred to the account of the complainant’s husband. The complainant also obtained scratch card offer on the new car. It is submitted that the 1st opposite party extended its corporate offer to the complainant only on representation made by her that her husband is an advocate and he is the person who has given the proposal form for purchase of the vehicle. The 1st opposite party has given that offer of Rs.2,000/- by taking his ID Proof of complainant’s husband. The 1st opposite party also contended that though the 1st opposite party insisted the complainant to take delivery of the car immediately, the complainant herself postponing to take delivery of the car by claiming that the days are not auspicious. There was no delay on the part of the 1st opposite party in delivering the vehicle to the complainant. The 1st opposite party being dealer of Maruti brand vehicles and as part of their customer initiatives they agreed to all the requests made by the complainant and accordingly agreed and provided discounts, concessions and rebate on the new vehicle and also agreed to deliver and raise the invoice of the vehicle on the chosen date of the customer. The 1st opposite party submits that sales invoice will be raised only at one time and the originals will be handed over to the customer immediately. The invoice shall invariably consist of the signature of the authorized signatory of 1st opposite party with seal alongwith customer signature. The averments in the complaint states that VAT amount mentioned in the original invoice and the enquiries in the Commercial Tax Department are one and the same. Hence the allegation of fabricating documents does not arise. The 1st opposite party also submits that though the complainant obtained exchange offer of Rs.25,000/-, cash discount of Rs.44,000/- and corporate discount of Rs.2,000/- and apart from the scratch card offer with ulterior motive and unjustly enrich herself filed this false and frivolous complaint. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the facts and not made any mention of the benefits and discounts availed by her. The complaint is not maintainable as there was no deficiency of service or defects in the goods and the complainant has not suffered any loss or deficiency and there was no unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. Hence the complaint is not maintainable as per law and facts and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed a counter stating that the complaint against the 2nd opposite party is incorrect and denied. The complainant has admittedly booked the vehicle in question with 1st opposite party under a contract for sale of goods (Maruti Wagon R LXI Duo) and entered into an agreement after having mutually settled terms and conditions of sale with 1st opposite party. The complainant executed a separate sale agreement with 1st opposite party. The complainant paid the alleged amount towards booking of vehicle in question to 1st opposite party. The complainant has not paid any amount to this opposite party towards the price of vehicle in question. There is no privity of sale contract executed between the complainant and 2nd opposite party. This opposite party denied that they have published any advertisement in daily newspaper offering rebate amount of Rs.63,000/- on the purchase of the vehicle in question as alleged. The complainant has purchased/taken delivery of vehicle in question from the 1stopposite party. As per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the 2nd opposite party does not issue any documents relating to sale of vehicle to any individual customer. In the instant case, the 1st opposite party has sold the vehicle in question under its own invoice and sale certificate to the complainant. The complainant has not made any allegation against the 2nd opposite party. The entire sale transaction has taken place between the complainant and the 1st opposite party for which this opposite party is not privity. The complainant has unnecessarily dragged this opposite party into litigation to obtain undue gains. The 1stopposite party is an independent and separate legal entity. This opposite party is not responsible for any act of omission and commission on the part of this opposite party in terms of dealership agreement executed between this opposite party and 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has issued invoice against the vehicle to the complainant. This opposite party is not liable for alleged act on the part of 1stopposite party. The complainant has no case against this opposite party to issue alleged legal notice. This opposite party denied that the complainant is a consumer of this opposite party being no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite part and also denied that this opposite party jointly and severally liable to pay the alleged amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint against this opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any relief against this opposite party. There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant and against this opposite party. Hence prayed this Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties 1 & 2?
2. To what relief?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A7 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the 1st opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B6 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, no evidence on affidavit has been filed and no documents are marked on their behalf.
7. Heard on both sides.
8. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has purchased Maruthi Wagno R Car from 1st opposite party on exchange basis. She booked the above car on 06-09-2012 and took delivery on 26-09-2012. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,56,839/- towards Ex-show-room price including life tax and insurance and temporary registration. The counsel for the complainant submitted that there was paper advertisement on 20-09-2012 by the 2nd opposite party stating that there was an offer of rebate to the extent of Rs.63,000/- on the model of Wagon R Car. The complainant took delivery of the car before closure of the above offer. The complainant is entitled the offer of Rs.63,000/- and the same was demanded by the complainant. The 1st opposite party promised to refund the above said amount. The 1st opposite party issued sales invoice of 05-10-2012 though the car was delivered to the complainant on 26-09-2012. When the 1st O.P. refused to pay the offer amount of Rs.63,000/- on the ground that the invoice was after closure of the offer, then the complainant got issued legal notice for refund of the amount, but the opposite party gave reply with false allegations. Though the offer is subsisting the 1st opposite party failed to pay the amount and it is a case of deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party and it is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the amount. To prove the case the complainant filed sale tax receipt under Ex.A7 as the 1st opposite party stated in the invoice that VAT amount is Rs.53,507/-, whereas they have paid only Rs.49,907/-, which clearly shows that the 1st opposite party to go any extent to prove his case.
9. The 1st opposite party argued that the complainant is old customer of the company when the complainant intends to sell the old Maruti Alto Car, the 1st opposite party offered bonus of Rs.25,000/- though old car is valued only at Rs.2,25,000/-. The 1st opposite party has given Rs.2,50,000/- . The 1st opposite party argued that the complainant mentioned in the complaint that she booked Wagon R Car on 06-09-2012 and the same was taken on 26-09-2012. The reasons for delay in taking the car is not explained by the complainant though the car was ready before 26-09-2012. The opposite party also argued that the entire transaction was closed on 13-09-2012 itself as per Ex.B3 as the amount was transferred from HDFC Bank Account to the 1st opposite party. The opposite party also contended that because of the complainant is old customer, they have given discount of Rs.44,000/- at the request of the complainant though there were no offers existing at the time of taking car. Counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the husband of the complainant is working as advocate and on this ground the 1st opposite party has given corporate offer of Rs.2,000/- after taking Identity Proof of the husband of the complainant under Ex.B5. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that the 1st opposite party requested the complainant to take delivery of the car but was postponed as the days are not auspicious, the 1stopposite party kept the car only at the request of the complainant. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that without giving any quotation to the Bank, the Bank will never give any loan to the customers and the same was shown under Ex.B3 that HDFC Bank has given loan on 13-09-2012 itself. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that to avoid double tax as the old car not transferred in the name of 1stopposite party, when the same name in two registration, the tax will be levied double. To avoid it, only invoice issued on 05-10-2012. The 1st opposite party made invoice on 05-10-2012 though car was delivered on 26-09-2012. The 1st opposite party mentioned that the advertisement in newspapers was published on 20-09-2012 by that time the entire transactions were over between the complainant and opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled the offers as calmed. The opposite party also contended that the amount of Rs.44,000/- given as discount and the same was debited to the account of the complainant’s husband on the request of the complainant and the same was debited and it is clearly shown under Ex.B4. The 1st opposite party has availed more offer than the available at the time of booking of the car. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has not fabricated the document i.e. Ex.B1 as alleged by the complainant. The case is not fit case to come under the definition of unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. The complainant filed this complaint with ulterior motive to get wrongful gain by concealing the facts though she benefited and obtained discounts. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
10. As per Ex.A1 and Ex.B6 the complainant purchased Maruti Wagon R LXI DUO BS IV WRMLCS100 Car from the 1st opposite party, who is the dealer of 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the car. As per the complaint and evidence on affidavit, the complainant booked Maruti Wagon R Car LXI Duo on 06-09-2012 and took delivery of the same on 26-09-2012. No dispute with regard to booking and taking delivery of the car by the complainant. The main dispute is that as per the complaint, as she took delivery of the car on 26-09-2012 she is entitled the offers which were offered by the 1st opposite party through paper advertisement on 20-09-2012 validity up-to 30-09-2012.
11. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the wagon R LXI DUO BS IV WRMLCS 100 Car, herein after called as Wagon R for a sum of Rs.4,56,839/- including all taxes. She purchased the above said car only after selling her old Maruti Car. The complainant stated that the estimation of old car fixed by the 1st opposite party as Rs.2,50,000/- remaining balance amount paid through Bank on 13-09-2013. No document filed to show that old car sold for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. On the other side the 1st opposite party contended that old Maruti Alto Car estimated value was Rs.2,25,000/- and 1st opposite party has given Rs.25,000/- bonus under Ex.B1, which bears the signature of the complainant. The above document was denied by the complainant and mentioned that Ex.B1 fabricated and the complainant’s signature forged. When we compare the signature of the complainant under Ex.B1 with signature in the complaint and vakalat, we observed that the signatures are one and the same and there was no forgery.
12. The counsel for the complainant argued that though the complainant booked the car on 06-09-2012 the 1st opposite party has not delivered the car till 26-09-2012, she entitled the offer amount of Rs.63,000/- as per Ex.A2. The 1st opposite party contended that the car was ready to deliver, the complainant herself postponed as the days are not good and she requested to deliver the same on auspicious day and they kept the vehicle at the request of the complainant only. The 1st opposite party also argued that when the entire amount paid on 13-09-2012 under Ex.B3, no one prevented the complainant to take delivery of her car. As per Ex.B3 there was transfer of amount of Rs.2,84,716/- on 13-09-2012 from the account of the complainant to the 1st opposite party for this there was no answer from the complainant. Once the entire amount paid by the complainant to the 1st opposite party, the contract between the complainant and 1st opposite party ends. The contract ends on 13-09-2012 itself as the 1st opposite party received the amount from the complainant. The complainant not even pleaded in the complaint that the 1st opposite party postponed to deliver the car before 26-09-2012 to entitle the offer amounts to which she is claiming. It shows that the complainant herself kept the car in the 1st opposite party custody with her wish only and the reasons best known by her only.
13. The counsel submitted that though the 1st opposite party promised to refund the amount of Rs.63,000/-, they postponed the same on some pretext or the other. At the end of March, 2013 they refused the offer amount stating that invoice dated 05-10-2012, which is after closure of the offer, this is unfair trade practice. Though the complainant has taken delivery of the car on 26-09-2012 the invoice effected on 05-10-2012 under Ex.A1. The counsel for the complainant stated that in reply to legal notice dt.14-04-2013 the 1st opposite party mentioned under Ex.A4 an amount was of Rs.44,000/- was refunded to the complainant’s husband account and it is not a discount as mentioned by the 1st opposite party in the counter. If it is discount, they would have mentioned the same in reply that it is discount, but it is mentioned as refund.
14. The opposite party contended that there was no promise from the 1st opposite party for refund of offer amount as the contract ended on 13-09-2012, the question of promise to refund of offer does not arise. More-over the complainant has given more than the offer amount as she is old customer of 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has given Rs.25,000/- bonus to old Maruti Alto Car under Ex.B1 and the amount of Rs.44,000/- was refunded to the complainant’s husband’s account on 18-09-2012 under Ex.B4 and an amount of Rs.2,000/- was given towards corporate offer under Ex.B5 as the complainant’s husband is an advocate.
15. As per Ex.B4 an amount of Rs.44,000/- was debited into the account of the complainant’s husband on 18-09-2012. Whether the amount was debited as discount or it is excess amount paid by the complainant, no whisper in the complaint about the said amount by the complainant though they received reply on 14-04-2013 the complainant has not mentioned the same in the complaint and the present case was filed on 10-06-2013. The complainant suppressed the offer amount of Rs.2,000/- towards Corporate offer and scratch card offer availed by her.
16. The counsel for the complainant argued though there was an advertisement under Ex.A2 by offering bonus amounts, the opposite party has not given the offers to which the complainant entitled, it amounts unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party. The meaning of unfair trade is as follows under Consumer Protection Act:
17. As per section 2(1)(r)(2) – permits the publication of any advertisement whether in any newspaper or other-wise, for the sale or supply at a bargain price of goods or services that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price, or for a period that is and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the nature of the market in which the business is carried on, the nature and size of business, and the nature of the advertisement.
Explanation:- For the purposes of clause (2) “bargaining price “ means:
(a) A price that is stated in any advertisement to be a bargain price, by reference to an ordinary price or other-wise; or
(b) A price that a person who reads, hears or sees the advertisement, would reasonably understand to be a bargain price having regard to the prices at which the product advertised or like products are ordinarily sold.
The case in hand does not come under the definition of unfair trade price. The advertisement in newspaper under Ex.A2 sale or supply at bargain price by reference to ordinary price and reasonably understand to be a bargain price having regard to the prices at which product advertised or like product are ordinary sold. As per Ex.A2 the advertisement in newspaper was published on 20-09-2012 subsisted up-to 30-09-2012. There is no contract subsisting by the date of advertisement between the complainant and 1st opposite party as per explanation. The advertisement in newspaper is not relating to price are bargain prices, when compared to regular price, whereas in the present case, there was no bargain price offered by the opposite parties.
18. We are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled the offer amounts as claimed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and it is not a case of unfair trade practice as discussed above. The complainant failed to prove that how she is entitled the offer amount of Rs.63,000/- under different heads. As the advertisement in newspaper was published on 20-09-2012 only after end of the entire transaction between the parties, mere car was taken on 26-09-2012 after advertisement she is not entitled the offer amounts.
19. We are also opined that the complainant filed this present complaint to gain unlawfully and came to this Forum with unclean hands by suppressing the offers availed by her at the time of purchase of car and exchange of her old car. This point is answered in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
19. POINT NO.2 - In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 3rd day of June, 2014.
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Photo copy of sale invoice dt.05-10-2012 for Rs.3,94,097/- issued by the 1st opposite
party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A2 - Newspaper advertisement relating Wagon R Car.
Ex.A3 - Office copy of legal notice dt.03-04-2013 got issued by the complainant to the
1st Opposite party.
Ex.A4 - Reply notice dt.14-04-2013 got issued by the 1st opposite party to the counsel for the
Complainant.
Ex.A5 – Delivery Certificate issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A6 - Order Booking dt.06-09-2012 given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A7 - Letter dt.23-05-2013 issued by the Public Information Officer & Deputy Commercial
Tax Officer-III, Commercial Tax Officer-I, Anantapur.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
Ex.B1 – Sale Receipt dt.06-09-2012 issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B2 – Delivery Certificate dt.06-09-2012 issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B3 – Photo copy of statement of account relating to 1st opposite party issued by HDFC
Bank.
Ex.B4 - Photo copy of Statement of Account relating to 1st opposite party issued by Axis
Bank, Ananthapuramu.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
- NIL -
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
