DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/128/2013
No. DF/ Central/ Dated:
Manoj Loharia
S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Avtar Loharia
R/o N-32 NDSE Part-I New Delhi-110049. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors
Having office at
Indraprastha Metro Station, I.P. Estate
Opposite WHO,
ITO Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Directors
Having office at:
Indraprastha Metro Station,
I.P. Estate Opposite WHO,
ITO Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Sh. Sanjiv Sawhney
Managing Director
M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Having Office at 508 F.I.E. Patparganj,
Opp. DTC Bus Depot, Delhi-110092
Sh. Vishal Sawhney
Director
M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Having Office at 508 F.I.E. Patparganj,
Opp. DTC Bus Depot, Delhi-110092
Sh. Shailender Tyadi
Manager Service
M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Having Office at 508 F.I.E. Patparganj,
Opp. DTC Bus Depot, Delhi-110092
Sh. Rahul Sawhney
Director
M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.
At Indraprastha Metro Station,
I.P. Estate Opposite WHO,
ITO Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Sh. Manoj Nigam
A.G.M.
M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd.
At Indraprastha Metro Station,
I.P. Estate Opposite WHO,
ITO Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110002.
Sh. Vinod Rana
Dealer Cordinator
Maruti Suzuki India Limited
Plot No. 1 Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070
Maruti Suzuki India Limited
Manager- Customer Care
Plot No. 1 Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070
(OPs 2 to 9 dropped from arrays of OPs as unnecessary parties on statement of counsel for complainant vide order dated 15.05.2013.)
Maruti Suzuki India Limited
Through Managing Director Cum Chairman
Plot No. 1 Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070. …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Quorum: Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Sh. Manoj Loharia (in short the complainant) filed instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended making therein the
following submissions. On 18.04.2011, OP7 through his sales manager, namely Mr. Saroj, offered a lucrative deal to the complainant to buy an SX4 ZXi model with Automatic transmission for an amount of Rs. 8,10,525/- whose market price on road was Rs. 9,33,705/-. The said representative told the complainant that the car was manufactured in 2010but assured that there would be no problem regarding after-sales service. Complainant accepted the offer and paid Rs. 25,000/- vide receipt no. 837dated 08.04.2011. The said sales representative accepted the advance money and stated that the car would be delivered on 10.04.2011. On 09.04.2011, complainant called Mr. Saroj, the sales representative to check the status of loan and delivery of the car. Mr. Saroj informed the complainant that loan of Rs. 6,98,000/- had been sanctioned and he advised the complainant to come with margin money. Complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 99,540/- as down payment and was assured that balance amount Rs. 12,015/- would be refunded. Complainant paid Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 99,540/- in cash vide two receipt numbers 846 and 845 respectively. On 03.05.2011 he visited Rohan Motors for availing first free service after the car had run 899 Kms. Complainant learnt from the officials of Rohan Motors that as per record, the car was sold on 31.05.2010 and first free service was to be availed within a period of one month or 1,000 K.M. whichever is earlier. It was only when OP7 talked to Rohan Motors that vehicle was serviced. On 10.10.2011, complainant went for second free service done when vehicle in question had completed 3952 K.M. On 07.04.2012 complainant got third free service done when the vehicle in question had completed 7468 K.M.
OPs are stated to be guilty of deficiency in service as they have sold second hand, less driven car or a demo car to the complainant fraudulently which might have been sold by them on 31.05.2010 to someone else. As per last service report by the service dealer there was a problem in steering wheel which needed replacement. Instant complaint is filed seeking direction to the OPs to refund a sum of Rs. 12,015/- along with 18% per annum till its realization, replacement of the said vehicle with brand new similar or higher model vehicle of same worth, compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with 18% per annum for causing mental agony and litigation expenses.
2. OPs contested the claim vide their reply. Parties have filed evidence by way of affidavits. We have heard complainant in person.
3. Complainant has alleged that he was offered a lucrative deal by Mr. Saroj who was a sales representative of OP7. It is submitted that he was offered to buy SX4 ZXi for an amount of Rs. 8,10,525/- whose market price was Rs. 9,33,705/-. OP1 has denied that any such lucrative deal was offered to the complainant. It is also stated that loan amount of only Rs. 6,93,550/- and not Rs. 6,98,000/- was sanctioned by the banker of the complainant.
4. Complainant has relied on annexure-1. Annexure-1 does not bear name of the complainant. It cannot be said that it was perfoma invoice for the complainant. In their reply OP has pleaded that Annexure-1 was not given by the OP to the complainant. It is also stated that it does not bear the seal and signature of the authorized signatory of the OP.
5. Complainant has sought refund of Rs. 12,015/- on the ground that sales representative of OP7 namely Mr. Saroj assured him to return the said amount. On the statement of learned counsel for the complainant OP7 was deleted from the array of OPs. Complainant has not shown any document which may indicate that OP1 or its authorized representative gave an assurance of return of Rs. 12,015/- on settlement of accounts.
6. Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on part of OPs by alleging that they fraudulently sold him the vehicle of 2010 which was allegedly a second hand, less driven or demo car. OPs have denied the said allegations. Complainant himself in Para 2 of the complaint admitted that OP’s representative clearly told him that the car in question was manufactured in 2010. OPs in Para 17 of the written statement have submitted that every vehicle has its documents for sale and registration and in this case also the complainant is having registration certificate which contains his name at serial number 1 which means that he is the first owner to purchase this vehicle. It is further stated that at the time of sale the odometer reading indicated that it was brand new vehicle. In corresponding Para 17 of his rejoinder, complainant has admitted that he is having registration certificate of the said vehicle as first owner/purchaser of the vehicle in question. He has denied that at the time of sale odometer reading indicated that it was a brand new vehicle.
If the odometer reading was not zero at the time complainant purchased the vehicle in question he should not purchase the vehicle.
7. OP10 in Para 6 of written statement has stated that it had carried out final check OK for the vehicle in question and sold a new vehicle to OP1 against C-Form payment. It is also stated in Para 10 that complainant is entitled to full benefits of warranty service and that complainant availed full warranty service and collected the vehicle without any protest or demur. It is also stated in Para 6 that complainant’s vehicle was never refused any warranty service. It is stated that the complainant has availed 3 free services without any protest and is now raising a false claim.
8. Complainant has admitted that on 03.05.2011 he availed first free service from Rohan Motors as the car had run 899K.M. Even as per complainant’s case there was no problem with the car even after it had covered 899K.M. As per his case he got second free service done on 10.10.2011 when the car had covered 3,952K.M. Even at that stage the car did not have any functional problem. Complainant got third free service done on 07.04.2012 when the vehicle had completed 7,468K.M.
It rather substantiates the case of the OP that the vehicle was OK. It did not have any problem and the complainant got 3 services done to his satisfaction. His plea that he had been sold a second hand, less driven car or demo car is baseless and is not substantiated by any documents.
9. Before parting with the order it may be mentioned that an objection was raised by the OPs regarding limitation. In Para 24 of the complaint it is simply mentioned that the complaint is within limitation. However it is not clarified as to how it is within limitation. It is submitted by OP that the car was sold on 08.04.2011 and instant complaint was filed on 15.05.2013. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the complainant came to know about the car being second hand, less driven or demo car when he visited Rohan Motors on 03.05.2011. The fact remains that the complainant has woken up after a long slumber after having enjoyed 3 free services of the vehicle in question and when the vehicle had covered 7,468K.M.
In the prayer clause, complainant has mentioned that he has not been able to take the vehicle out of station as no warranty is being entertained by any service dealer. OP has denied the same and there is no evidence that the service dealer has refused to provide any service.
The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this Day of 2018
