Delhi

North East

CC/204/2018

Sh. Ashraf - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sterlingh Honda Auto Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

03 Sep 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 204/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh Ashraf S/o Layeek Ahmad  H. No. F5, Gali No 1, F- Block, Chand Bagh,Karwal Nagar North East, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	Sterling Honda Automobile ZB, 45-46/487, Opposite Dilshad Garden Metro Station, G.T.Road, Shahdara Delhi-110095.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

24.09.2018 03.09.2019 03.09.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Brief facts as averred by the complainant in the present complaint are that he had approached OP in the beginning of January 2017 for buying a car to be plied as a taxi to earn livelihood towards self employment. The OP’s executive one Mr. Prabhat, in dealing with the complainant showed him Honda Amaze SMT Metallic PE Model Car having EX- showroom price of Rs. 5,99,900/- and on road price being Rs. 7,84,900/-. On the basis of the said performa invoice issued by OP, the complainant applied for vehicle loan with Central Bank of India which loan was sanctioned by it for a sum of  Rs. 6,67,000/- vide cheque No. 228018 dated 09.01.2018 in favour of OP. However, Mr. Prabhat of OP gave another hand written estimate with respect to AMAZE EMT to the tune of Rs. 6,86,000/- on road price with the breakup as hereunder:

1. Ex showroom price – Rs. 5,47,700/-
2. Road tax - Rs.25,000/- (Life time)
3. Bank Guarantee – Rs. 5,000/-
4. GPS / Meter – Rs. 16,500/-    
5. Insurance – Rs. 34,500/-
6. CNG – Rs. 45,000/-
7. Music System – Rs. 12,500/-

Grand Total = Rs. 6,86,000/-

           

The complainant has submitted that the OP adopted unfair trade practice and provided deficient service to the complainant in failure to give proper Bill, RC and Permit to the complainant at the time of purchase till date for which the complainant had to suffer serious consequences. Further, the complainant handed over AMAZE 1.2 EMT car instead of SMT as initially represented and agreed to between the parties and issued a dubious invoice dated 10.01.2017 in which Ex showroom price is shown as Rs. 5,26,651/- whereas vehicle hypothecation lease with Central Bank of India shows the loan amount of Rs. 6,67,000/- against which the complainant made a down payment of Rs. 49,000/- and despite complainant’s repeated insistence to provide correct and broken up / separate bill for expenses on various heads, OP failed to provide the same.  The OP handed over the RC without CNG endorsement against fuel despite having charged Rs. 45,000/- for installation of the same with assurance that the RC would incorporate the said endorsement from the concerned RTO and despite several follow-ups and requests of the complainant, OP failed to get the revised RC issued. Complainant has also raised the grievance that OP had charged Rs. 25,000/- from him towards the state permit from Transport Department GNCTD with assurance of life time validity however, to the utter shock of the complainant, the said permit expired on 31.03.2017 i.e. in the first quarter of the purchase of the vehicle itself and the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 2,640/- inclusive of penalty charges for renewal of permit w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. Another example of deficiency of service on the part of OP was in the insurance policy certificate which the OP got issued qua the vehicle in question bearing No. DL 1R TB 9711 which got insured with IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance in which the vehicle number was incorrectly written as DL 1RT 9711 due to which the complainant could not attach his vehicle with UBER service as the company refused to acknowledge a separate endorsement of corrected registration number (which was later on handed over by OP) instead of the same being on the principal cover note / certificate of policy schedule. The complainant has also raised his grievance regarding the OP having charge excessively for the GPS meter installation to the tune of Rs. 16,500/- against which when the retail invoice No. 6253 dated 21.02.2017 was issued by Sukh Preet Electronic Pvt Ltd, the total cost came to       Rs. 9,160/- only. The complainant has submitted that the subject vehicle met with an accident on 19.08.2017 in which the complainant has sought replacement swollen tyre but OP service centre refuse to give the same and in fact handed over the vehicle after 84 days on 11.11.2017 as against promise of delivery in 15-20 days during which period, the complainant suffered loss of livelihood and was saddled with burden of paying EMIs to the Bank without earning for which he had also lodged a written complaint with OP but to no avail. Lastly, the complainant submitted that the Central Bank of India vide letter dated 22.09.2017 to OP, requested OP to provide bill and RC of the subject vehicle as the said documents were not submitted. For all the above deficiencies and discrepancies, the complainant visited the OP showroom several times but no response was given to him regarding non insertion of CNG in RC, no proper / separate bill, refund towards excess charged for road tax, wrong RC number written in insurance policy, no replacement of old tyre for a vehicle given different from what was promised and non-payment of differential amount of what was quoted by OP to the bank and actual cost of car as mentioned in the invoice, excess charged for GPS installation and compensation for 84 days delay in handing over the vehicle after repairs which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OP to handover the final Invoice and RC of the subject vehicle with CNG mentioned on it, to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards road tax excessively charged by OP, to pay a sum of Rs. 7,340/- towards GPS installation which was taken in excess, to pay compensation of      Rs. 1,00,000/- towards non delivery of Honda Amaze SMT against which CBI had financed the loan, to pay sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of income due to retaining the vehicle for 84 days by OP, to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- towards expense incurred for state permit of U.P., Haryana and Rajasthan, to pay sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment,  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and to pay Rs. 25,000/-  towards litigation expenses.

Complainant has attached, copy of performa invoice dated 07.01.2017 issued by OP for Honda Amaze Metallic SMT PE Model, copy of vehicle loan cheque of Rs. 6,67,000/- issued by CBI in favor of OP, copy of hand written estimate by OP’s Executive Prabhat with respect to Honda Amaze EMT for Rs. 6,86,000/-, copy of vehicle retail invoice dated 10.01.2017 for Rs. 5,26,651/- issued by OP, copy of RC, copy of permit issued by Transport Department GNCTD, copy of Tax receipt dated 06.08.2017 issued by Transport Department GNCTD for renewal of annual permit for 2017-18 against payment of Rs. 2,640/-, copy of insurance policy certificates bearing no ITG / 82404995 w.e.f 11.01.2018 to 10.01.2019 under stamp and seal of OP with corrected endorsement of registration number of this car, copy of invoice dated 21.02.2017 of GPS meter, copy of repair invoice dated 11.11.2017 for repairs undertaken by ASC of OP of the subject vehicle to the tune of Rs. 71,127/-, copy of letter dated 22.09.2017 by C.B.I. to OP asking for bill and RC copy, copy of permit by Transport Department GNCTD with validity form February 2017 to February 2022 copy of temporary RC with fuel endorsement petrol/ CNG and copy of complaint to OP by complainant for non release of subject vehicle sent for post accidental repairs in August 2017.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 17.11.2018 which was served on the OP on 30.11.2018 however none appeared on its behalf and was therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 01.01.2019.
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written argument in reassertion of his grievance against the OP and exhibited documents relied upon.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for complainant. there is indeed a discrepancy between the ex showroom price of Honda Amaze as can be seen perform invoice dated 07.01.2017 and retail invoice dated 10.01.2017 and in fact the Model numbers are also different and the quotation given in the performa invoice is also different from the hand written quotation given by Mr. Prabhat, representative of OP. The OP failed to appear and explain the discrepancy in the figures. The loan of             Rs. 6,67,000/- could only be sanctioned on the basis of performa invoice and not on the basis of hand written invoice since loan amount cannot be equivalent to the cost of the goods intended to be purchased as the borrower is expected to pay some amount from his own pocket. However, the bill amount is curiously enough less than the loan amount which raises a big question mark on its authenticity not to omit mentioning that a different model of car was sold to the complainant as against the one for which the quotation was given and loan got sanctioned. Further, the RC does not bear CNG endorsement against fuel though the complainant had opted for a company fitted CNG kit against of payment of       Rs. 45,000/-. Further the OP unfairly charged a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for permit with assurance of life time validity but which expire within the first quarter of the year itself and the complainant had to pay Rs. 2,640/- for yearly renewal which if calculated on Rs. 25,000/- would be valid for ten years but OP was grossly unfair on this account. OP also over charged Rs. 16,500/- from complainant for GPS installation which actually cost Rs. 9,160/- as from invoice. The complainant was also denied tie up with Uber Taxi service due to incorrect insertion of vehicle RC no. in insurance certificate and separate / corrected endorsement to that effect was not acceptable to Uber and lastly having held the vehicle for 84 days for repair from August 2017 till November 2017 deprive the complainant of plying the same to earn livelihood. The OP failed to rebut any of the aforementioned allegations leveled against it by the complainant due to its willful abstention /non appearance and therefore on the basis documents placed   before us and argument advanced, we are of the considered view that OP is guilty of unfair trade practice u/s 2(1)(r) of CPA  and u/s 2(1)(c) (iv) of CPA of charging excessive price which is also deficiency for service and allow the present complaint with direction to OP to handover the correct RC with CNG endorsement and proper and correct invoice to the complainant for the subject vehicle. We further direct the OP to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice for non delivery of promised vehicle, excess charging for GPS installation and life time road tax and deficiency of service in retaining subject vehicle for almost three months for repairs depriving complainant of usage of the same to earn livelihood and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental harassment inclusive of litigation cost to the complainant.
5. Let the order be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.
8. Announced on  03.09.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member