Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/122/2023

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Supreme Mobiles Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Godara

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                   

Complaint Case No.122 of 2023.

Date of Instt.:06.06.2023.

Date of Decision: 05.06.2024.

Naresh Kumar son of Rattan Lal r/o Sanysh Ashram Road, Ward No.10, Fatehabad.

...Complainant

                    Versus

 

1.Supreme Mobiles Private Limited, authorized dealer Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. 473/474, Auto Market, Hisar Haryana through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Automative Sector, Mahindra Towers, Akurll Road, Kandivali (East) Mumbai, 400101 through its Managing Director.

          ...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:       Sh.Sandeep Godara, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.S.S.Thind, Advocate for OP No.1.                                                         Sh.Vinod Godara, Advocate for Op No.2.                                              

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                                              DR.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had to purchase a car Mahindra XUV 300-W6 Variant black colour, therefore, he contacted Op No.1 wherein its representative assured that the same would be delivered within 15 days at the price of Rs.11,92,794/- and besides this it was also assured that Rs.25,000/- would be reduced from the total amount if old car is sold to anyone through Op No.1, therefore, the total price after exchange was finalized at Rs.11,67,794/-; that on the assurance of Op No.1, the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 at Hisar on 04.03.2023 and paid the booking amount of Rs.11,000/- agreeing the total amount of Rs.11,92,794/- (including the Ex.Showroom price, TCS-Tax, Registration, Insurance, accessory charges with the scheme of Rs.10,500/- (being exchange bonus) available at the time of booking of car; that the Op No.1 assured that the car would be delivered at the time as per booking details; that on 28.03.2023, authorized representative of the Op No.1 intimated the complainant that the car would be finally delivered on or before 31.03.2023 and further asked the complainant for arranging the amount; that on the assurance qua delivery of the car, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.9 lac on 29.03.2023 from his loan account via RTGS; that it was asked to the complainant by the representative of the Op No.1 that he can make the balance amount on 3.10.3023 at the time delivery of the car; that the complainant visited the Op No.1 as per assurance for taking the delivery of the car but it was informed to him that the car was not available with assurance that the same would be delivered within two days; that thereafter, the complainant again approached the Op No.1 for taking the delivery of the car but the Op No.1 asked to pay the higher amount than the booked amount due to hike in price and further the Op No.1 intentionally delayed the delivery of the car; that on 07.04.2023 the Op No.1 called the complainant for the delivery of the car and obtained Rs.1,99,000/- in cash besides transferring Rs.50,000/- in the account of Op No.1; that the Op No.1 also sold the old car of the complainant to one Ramesh Kumar on this day when the booked car was not available; that the complainant again visited the Op No.1 on 08.04.2023 for taking the delivery of the car but the Op No.1 demanded Rs.58998/- despite the fact that only Rs.7794/- were left  to be paid as per booking schedule; that cash discount of Rs.10,500/- was also not given to the complainant and the Op No.1 refused to provide the same; that finding no alternative, the complainant took the delivery of the car on higher rates than the booked price. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A besides documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C11.

2.                On notice, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their separate replies.  OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability and concealment of material facts from this Commission etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant had booked the car on 04.03.2023 by making a sum of Rs.11,000/- but it was assured to the complainant that price and schemes will be applicable at the time of delivery of the vehicle and no assurance qua selling of vehicle at Rs.11,92,794/- was given to the complainant; that the complainant was made understood that the vehicle would be delivered  s per the terms and conditions mentioned in the booking/estimate and complainant will charges the price of the car at the time of delivery; that on 08.04.2023 the car was delivered to the complainant and the amount was charged according to the price on the date of delivery, therefore, question of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at all. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the relationship of the replying Op with Op No.1 is on principle to principal basis and the issues relating to the booking, delivery, registration, servicing, customer relations, etc are independently, handled by Op No.1, therefore, the replying OP cannot be held responsible/liable with respect to the present dispute as no transaction has taken place between the complainant and replying Op; that the replying OP has no vital role, except the fact that it is solely a manufacture of the subject vehicle; that on 08.04.2023 at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the price of the vehicle was increased to Rs.1103549/-  and by that time cash discount of Rs.10,500/- had already over; that the vehicle is in possession of the complainant and he is using the vehicle without any issues; that the complainant has purchased the vehicle as per his sweet will and the Ops have not forced him to purchase the said vehicle. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents, Annexure R1, Annexure R2, Annexure OP1/A to Annexure OP/1C.

4.                Final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the case file has also been perused minutely.

5.                After going through the pleadings, documents and material available on the case file we find certain admitted facts such as booking of car at price of Rs. 11,92,794/- (including the Ex.Showroom price, TCS-Tax, Registration, Insurance, accessory charges with the scheme of Rs.10,500/- (being exchange bonus) (Annexure C1), depositing of booking amount to the tune of Rs.11,000/- on 04.03.2023 (Annexure C2), depositing of Rs.1,99,000/- on 07.04.2023 (Annexure C3), depositing of Rs.5000/- on 07.04.2023 (Annexure C4), depositing of Rs.50,000/- on 07.04.2023 (Annexure C5), depositing of Rs.58998/- on 08.04.2023 (Annexure C6), invoice  Annexure C7, insurance of vehicle in question Annexure C8, depositing of Rs.9 lac on 29.03.2023 (Annexure C9 & C10). 

6.                          Learned counsel for the complainant has stressed hard that the complainant had visited the Op No.1 number of times for taking the delivery as per the call/assurance of the Op No.1 but he was never informed about the hike of the price of vehicle and even he was never informed about non giving of bonus amount of Rs.10,500/- at the time of delivery of the vehicle despite assurance which makes the Ops guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service because had he been informed about the hike of the price, the complainant would have applied second thought to purchase the vehicle at the increased rate or not. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the Ops have intentionally withhold the vehicle and received the almost amount without delivering the vehicle and even kept the complainant in dark despite the fact that the balance amount/full amount of the vehicle was lying balance in his account as is mentioned in Annexure C9.

7.                          On the other hand the Op No.1 has come with the plea that the vehicle was booked by receiving Rs.11,000/-  on 04.03.2023 (Annexure OP1/A) but it was made clear to the complainant that price and schemes will be applicable at the time of delivery of the vehicle and no assurance qua selling of vehicle at Rs.11,92,794/- was given to the complainant and in support of his arguments he has drawn the attention of this Commission towards the terms and conditions mentioned in the booking/estimate Annexure OP1/A. The relevant clause is as under:

The above commitments are based on the schemes prevailing as of today. However, prices and schemes prevailing at the time of delivery shall be applicable.

 

8.                          Undisputedly, Order Taking OTF cum Committeemen Checklist (Annexure OP1/A) in other words vehicle agreement between the complainant and Op No.1 was executed on 04.03.2023. It is an agreement between the buyer and seller specifying the details of the vehicles, payment terms and any additional terms or conditions.  In other words we can say that the supplier had accepted the booking and confirmed the availability of the car on to be delivered on specific date on receiving of necessary payment from the buyer. It is proved on the case file that the complainant had visited the Op No.1 number of times for taking the delivery which was finally delivered on 08.04.2023 on the price of Rs.12,53,998/-(Annexure OP1/C) on the higher price than the booked price i.e. Rs.11,92,794/-. Visiting of complainant number of times to the Op no.1 is not disputed by the Ops and it is strange that the Op No.1 has not disclosed the complainant about the increasing of price rather lingering on the delivery of the car for the reasons best known to it.  It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant and Op No.1 have produced copy of invoice (Annexure C7 and Annexure OP 1/B) and both these documents have been issued by Op No.1 but in Annexure C7, given to the complainant by the Op No.1, the date of invoice and issuance date has been mentioned as 08.04.2023 whereas in Annexure OP1/B, invoice produced by the Op No.1 in evidence, the date of issuance has been mentioned as 10.04.2023. The Op No.1 has failed to explain before this Commission as to why the invoices of different dates have been issued. It appears that Annexure OP1/B (invoice) mentioning the date as 10.04.2023 has been issued just to fill the lacuna and to justify the inaction which was done by it by not giving the vehicle despite receiving almost value of the car from the complainant.

9.                          Another strange factor which this Commission has noticed that Op No.1 has not produced on the case file the stock record showing non-availability of the purchased/booked car by the complainant on 04.03.2023 vide Annexure C1/Annexure OP1/A.  The absence of stock record showing the available cars/vehicle shows that the delivery of the vehicle was being delayed keeping in view the price hike. The car was booked on 04.03.2023 on depositing of Rs.11,000/- as booking amount and further the amount of Rs.9 lac was received  by the Op No.1 on 31.03.2023 (Annexure C-11) but it is strange that the car was delivered on 08.04.2023 (Annexure C-7). Had the booked car was not available with the Op No.1, in that eventuality, the Op No.1 should not have received Rs.9 lac from the complainant without delivering the car in question. It is proved on the case file that there was sufficient amount in the account of the complainant (Annexure C9).  It was the duty of the Op No.1 to disclose the complainant about the hike of the price by giving an opportunity to apply second thought either to purchase the booked car or to surrender the booked amount but it appears that being in dominating position, the Op No.1 did not allow the complainant to do so rather received Rs.9 lac, which was obtained by the complainant as loan from SBI (Annexure C-11) out of the total valued car. Increasing of total value of the car/vehicle means increasing of Registration fee charges and insurance charges etc. and in the present matter due to unfair trade practice, the complainant has not only faced harassment and mental agony but also burdened with extra amount which he had paid, therefore, we are of the considered view that the present complaint deserves acceptance against Op No.1 only as non-supply of the booked car without any justify reason tentamounts to dishonest and unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.1.   

10.              Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.1 only to pay a sum of Rs.61024/- (difference of total amount in Annexure OP1/A and calculation sheet attached with the invoice OP1/B & C Rs.1253998 - Rs.1192974= 61024). The Op No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,500/- being bonus amount which was promised to be given to the complainant but at the time of delivery of the vehicle it was not given. The above said amount (Rs.61024/- & Rs.10,500/-) would be paid alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the filing of the complaint till its actual realization. The Op No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac in lump sum to the complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony, harassment, cost of litigation and on all other counts. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the awarded amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. The complaint against Op No.2 stands dismissed.

11.                        In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                          

Dated: 05.06.2024

                                                                                                        

         

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                   

   Member                              Member                              President