Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 04.
Instituted on : 02.01.2017.
Decided on : 15.02.2019
Amit Luhach, age 25 years, son of Sh. Sajjan Singh, Resident of H.No.165/29, Ram Gopal Colony, Rohtak, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
1. Srishti Hyundai, Srishti Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jind by pass Road, Rohtak-124001, District Rohtak through its General Manager, Sales.
2. Managing Director, Srishti Hyundai, Srishti Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jind By pass road, Rohtak-124001, District Rohtak.
3. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., 5th & 6th Floor Corporate One (Baani Building), Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre, Jasola New Delhi- 110076, through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL HOODA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukul Deswal & Sh. Pardeep Mittal, Advocates for the
complainant.
Sh. Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite party
No.1 & 2.
Mrs. Lovina Singla, Advocate for opposite party No. 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.11.2015, the complainant purchased a white colored Hyundai Verna SX 1.6 CrDI car bearing Chassis No.MALCU41ULFM189201*A & Engine No.D4FBEM250532 from the OP No. 1, through invoice No.H20150551A dated 25.11.2016. When complainant took the car to the OP No. 1 for its free service, the OP No. 1 never provided the complainant with any documents related to the service stating that there is some defect in the system and bill could not be generated. On 14.09.2016 the said car met with an accident at Sonipat and complainant took the same to Malwa Hyundai, Sonipat for its repair, but there he was informed by the service station that they are not able to open a job card for the car as it’s not a new car but a test drive car. Moreover the person concerned at the service station also informed that according to the system the delivery date of the car is 13.03.2015 and not 24.11.2015. Complainant went many times to the OP No. 1 to change the test drive car (second hand) in place of a new one, but they refused the same. That the act of opposite parties of selling a second hand car is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to replace the test drive car with a new one, to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages towards all the costs borne by the complainant alongwith Rs.5,00,000/- towards punitive compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 in its reply has submitted that all the documents relating to service were provided by opposite parties to the complainant at the time of service of the vehicle. Even the details of the service and repairs of the vehicle stood entered in the online system of the company. It is further submitted that the fact of the said car being a test drive vehicle was already in the knowledge of the complainant as at the time of sale of vehicle, special discount of Rs.53,039/- and free accessories were given to the complainant only for the reason that the said car was a test drive vehicle. Apart, the complainant also gave an undertaking to the OPs that he has no objection in purchasing the said test drive vehicle, but the said undertaking and other documents of OPs got burnt during Jat Agitation. Lastly prayed for dismissal the complaint qua the OPs No. 1 and 2.
3. Opposite party No. 3 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that OP No. 1 is authorized franchisee of OP No. 3. However, it is clarified that OP No. 1 is dealer of OP No. 3 with which OP No. 3 deals on “Principal-to-Principal” basis wherein for any act, omission, representation etc., by the dealers, they themselves are liable and OP No. 3 cannot be held liable for the same. It is further submitted that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that the OP No. 3 had promised or assured services, which was not fulfilled by OP No.3. The liability of OP No.3 being manufacturer of the Hyundai Cars is limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone and error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales of the car on the part of the dealer cannot be fastened upon OP No.3. It is further submitted that the aspect of sale retails is strictly between the complainant and selling dealer i.e. OPs No. 1 and 2. Opposite party No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua the OP No. 3.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and has closed his evidence on dated 29.08.2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No. 1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1/1 & Ex.R1/2 and has closed his evidence on dated 04.04.2018. Learned counsel for OP No. 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/1 & Ex.R3/2 and has closed his evidence on dated 21.12.2017.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, the contention of complainant is that the vehicle in question which was sold to the complainant by the opposite parties, was a test drive vehicle and the same was sold by the opposite party on higher rates to the complainant as compared to the other customers. To prove its contention complainant has placed on record Retail Invoice Ex.C12 and Ex.C13.
6. Perusal of both the documents reveals that the model of the vehicle in the alleged documents Ex.C12 & Ex.C13 is New Verna Verna FL 1.6 CRDi S Pure White whereas as per Retail Invoice Ex.C7 the complainant had purchased the vehicle New Verna CRDiSX1.6BSIV Pure White which is the top model of Verna. Hence there is a difference of rate of both the vehicles and it is not proved that the excess amount was charged from the complainant as compared to same model. The other plea taken by the complainant is that the test drive vehicle was sold to the complainant. In this regard it is observed that as per letter Ex.C1, it was clearly communicated at the time of delivery that the opposite party is selling the test drive vehicle and undertaking was also taken from the complainant that the complainant has no objection in buying the test drive car. It is also submitted by the opposite parties that they are unable to provide the document regarding no objection as the same was burnt during Jat Agitation.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties, it is observed that as per document Ex.C7, complainant had availed a discount of Rs.53039/- on account of purchasing of Test Drive Vehicle. The date of invoice is 25.11.2015, price of car is Rs.1029588/- and after deducting the discount of Rs.53039/-, net selling price is Rs.976549/- and after adding the VAT & other charges the total amount payable by the complainant is Rs.1109222/-. It is also observed that the document Ex.C11 itself shows that the complainant had visited the show-room on 23.05.2016, 06.06.2016 and 26.06.2016 for free service and some other services but no complaint was alleged in the said vehicle. There is no hide & seek on the part of opposite parties. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.02.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
