Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 626.
Instituted on : 06.11.2017.
Decided on : 03.01.2019.
Amit Garg age 30 years s/o Sh. Suresh Garg R/o Near Hindu Sewa Samiti, Charki Dadri(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Shrishti Hyundai(A Unit of Srishti Motors Pvt. Ltd.) Opp. New Power House, Jind By Pass Road, Rohtak-124001.
- Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrugattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram Distt. Tamil Nadu-602105.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Naveen Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Mukesh Parmar, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a Hyundai Grand I-10 Car(bearing registration No.HR-19L-4311) from respondent no.1. At the time of purchase the OPs offered corporate discount of Rs.5000/-. That after purchase complainant submitted all documents e.g. Corporate ID Card, Salary statement, Car RC and KYC document. That after 4-5 visits to dealer, they denied for corporate discount saying that as the complainant was working with Axis Bank and there is no discount for Axis bank employee. That complainant made complaint to HMIL then they agreed that they have made fake commitment for selling car and offered the complainant taplon and antirust coating with warranty in Rs.3800/- and Rs.1200/- discount on service which the complainant agreed, but at the time of service they denied for the offer made and the complainant had to make full payment of service. That complainant time and again requested the opposite party to pay the alleged benefit but to no response. That due to dereliction of duties and negligence of opposite party and due to non funding of Rs.5000/- the complainant suffered loss. That the act of opposite party is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay Rs.5000/- and Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that answering opposite party never made any commitment for selling car. That there was corporate discount of Rs.5000/- on purchase of Hyundai Xcent or Hyundai i20 but for Grand i10 Car, there was no discount. That there may be any some inadvertent mistake on the part of answering respondent and for that reason only, the complainant was offered Teflon & Anti-rust coating worth Rs.5650/- upon payment of Rs.650/- but the complainant refused to pay the said amount also. That complainant is not entitled for any compensation on any ground. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the answering OP or the dealer being OP No.1 made any false commitment regarding the car. However, it is true that an email was issued by the dealer to the complainant, in which dealer was ready to provide free of cost taplon and antirust coating worth Rs.3800/- as well as make a refund of Rs.1200/- to the complainant on payment of Rs.650/- . But the complainant refused to accept the said offer. That all such communication is between the complainant and opposite party No.1 only. That there is no allegation made against the answering opposite party as no assurance was made by the answering OP. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/6 and closed his evidence. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/2 and closed his evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by OP No.2 as well as material aspects of the case carefully.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that opposite party vide its email Ex.C3/Ex.C7 has admitted the fact that the official of the opposite party had offered Corporate discount of Rs.5000/-to the complainant. Opposite party has placed on record the document Ex.R1/6 which is also the same. The first para of the alleged documents itself shows that Corporate discount has been issued by the respondent officials and in lieu of the corporate offer of Rs.5000/- the respondent officials offered an another offer which is Free Teflon and Anti-rust coating worth Rs.5650/-. The complainant refused to receive the subsequent offer and nothing has been paid by the responding officials to the complainant against the agreed offer worth Rs.5000/-.
8. After perusal of all the relevant documents, we came to the conclusion that once an offer has been made and this has been confirmed from the documents, the respondent officials are bound to pay the same to the complainant. As such, OP no.1 is directed to pay the alleged amount of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant against the alleged offer and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.01.2019.
......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
