Punjab

Moga

CC/17/21

Sarabjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Moters - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vishal Jain

19 Jul 2017

ORDER

  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 21 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 22.02.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 19.07.2017 

 

Sarabjit Singh aged about 42 years son of Sh.Baldev Singh son of Sh.Hazura Singh, resident of House no.54, Gali no.4, Model Town, Amritsar Road, Moga.

 

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Tata Motors having registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai- 400001, through Managing Director.

 

2.       Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. having Branch Office at Savitri Complex- 1, Near Dholewala Chowk, G.T. Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

 

3.       Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. having Branch Office at Bughipura Bypass Near Kingdom Hotel, Moga, through its Branch Manager Sh.Sachin Sharma.

 

4.       Sachin Sharma, Manager Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., having Branch Office at Bughipura Bypass Near Kingdom Hotel, Moga.  

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Vishal Jain, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Darshan Singh Gill, Advocate Cl. for opposite party no.1.

                   Sh. Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law Officer for opposite party nos.2 & 3.

                   Opposite party no.4 ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Tata Motors having registered office at Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai, through Managing Director and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing opposite party nos.2 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- approximately received in excess by them in respect of purchase of one car Model Tata Tiago XM Petrol, as they have charged the insurance amount from the complainant to the tune of Rs.19,762/- and issued the cover note only to the tune of Rs.9610/- and also received Rs.4800/- for processing of loan, which the complainant was not liable to pay. Further opposite parties jointly and severally may be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by complainant at the hands of opposite parties and Rs.6600/- as litigation expenses to complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that as the complainant desire to purchase a new car, he approached the opposite party nos.3 & 4 and they finalized the deal with the complainant on 31.01.2017, in which, the opposite party no.4 agreed to hand over the car make Tata Tiago XM Petrol 2017 for a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-, which includes the car plus insurance (Dep Cap), RC, number plates and also the complainant delivered his old car Nano make Tata Motors as exchange for the same. Thereafter the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- through NEFT in the account of opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,46,511/- was transferred from HDFC Bank account of the complainant to the account of opposite party no.2 and Rs.3450/- paid in cash to opposite party nos.3 & 4. So, in this way the complainant paid total amount of Rs.4,09,961/- as per the deal dated 31.01.2017 and also handed over his Nano Car bearing registration no.PB-29N-3460 to opposite party nos.2 to 4. Thereafter, the complainant received a message from the District Transport Officer qua applying of RC by opposite party no.3 at Moga and the amount of RC i.e. Rs.32,338/-, through no.OPB0217382400010 dated 07.02.2017. Thereafter, after two/three days the complainant received a cover note of the above said vehicle from the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, through opposite party no.3 for the period 01.02.2017 to 31.01.2018 in which the premium amount was mentioned Rs.9610/- instead of the amount received by the opposite party nos.2 to 4 qua insurance to the tune of Rs.19,762/-. After receiving this insurance cover, the complainant contacted the opposite parties nos.2 to 4, but they did not respond to the same. Moreover, when the complainant received the price list of the said vehicle, then he came to know that the opposite party nos.2 to 4 also received Rs.4800/- excess from the complainant about the document handling charges, which the opposite parties were not liable to be received. Thereafter, the complainant even sent an email dated 11.02.2017 to customer care of Tata Motors Ltd. by mentioning all the facts, who respond to the same and asked the complainant to contact their Territory Sails Manager Mr. Deepak Chhabra by giving his mobile number. When the complainant approached said Mr. Deepak Chhabra, through his mobile, then he said that it is a lack or cheating on the part of opposite party nos.2 to 4 and they will resolve the matter as early as possible, but all in vain. Thereafter, the complainant a number of times visited the office of opposite parties with the request to return the amount received by them in excess, but they flatly refused to pay anything to complainant. The act of keeping amount of Rs.15,000/- by opposite parties without any reason is a clear cut deficiency in service. Due to the aforesaid act of opposite parties the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony and harassment. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Forum by suppressing the material facts; that no allegations have been averred by the complainant against answering opposite party and the entire sale transaction has been done between the complainant and opposite party no.1 and the complainant at no point of time approached the answering opposite party at the time of sale of vehicle. Hence the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The answering opposite party being of manufacturer of vehicle in question has no role to play in the present controversy; that the relationship exists between the opposite parties is on 'principal to principal' basis. The answering opposite party cannot be held liable for any independent act and/or omission, committed by the other opposite parties. Thus, for the acts of the one opposite party, another opposite party could not be held vicariously liable; that without prejudice to the foregoing submission, it is submitted that the instant complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The onus lies on the complainant to show that the reliefs as contemplated under section 14 can be given for the defect in goods supplied or deficiency in service provided to the complainant; that the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to the answering opposite party, which is a company of long standing and high repute and as a ruse to extract money without just cause or valid reason; that the complainant has not served any demand notice on the opposite party before filing the present complaint. It is mandatory required of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Rules that before filing any complaint, a prior demand notice is necessary to be served upon by the complainant. Hence, the present complaint ought to be dismissed on the above ground.

                   In parawise reply, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant has purchased a Tata Tiago from opposite party no.2 on 31.01.2017. It is submitted that the entire sale transaction has been done between the complainant and opposite party no.2 and hence the same can be best replied by opposite party no.2 only. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs against answering opposite party has been made.

4.                Opposite party nos.2 & 3 filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against opposite party nos.2 & 3; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the complainant has approached the answering opposite parties for the purchase of vehicle i.e. Tata Tiago XM with Revotron 1.2 L Petrol Engine and the complainant showed his desire to get the said vehicle in exchange of Tata Nano Car and the answering opposite parties agreed to the same and purchased the nano car of the complainant worth Rs.45,000/-. The showroom price of the vehicle purchased by the complainant was Rs.4,18,693/- and amount of Rs.9610/- was charged for the dap cap insurance of the said vehicle and an amount of Rs.32,338/- was charged on account of registration charges of the vehicle. Thus, total amount payable by the complainant was Rs.4,60,641/-. The complainant got his vehicle financed from HDFC Bank Limited and an amount of Rs.2,46,511/- was paid by the finance company of the said vehicle on 04.02.2017 and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- through NEFT on 01.02.2017 in favour of opposite parties and an amount of Rs.45,000/- was also adjusted vide receipt no.2021 dated 01.02.2017 (the price of the Nano car sold by the complainant to the answering opposite parties) and thereafter the complainant had also paid the balance amount of the vehicle i.e. Rs.3450/- in cash vide receipt no.2022 on 01.02.2017. Thus, the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.4,54,961/- to the answering opposite parties. After adjusting the above said amount paid by the complainant an amount of Rs.5680/- was balance towards the complainant to be paid to the answering opposite parties. The complainant requested the answering opposite parties to give discount of the remaining amount of Rs.5680/- to which the answering opposite parties agreed and gave the discount of Rs.5680/-. Thus, from the above said facts, it is crystal clear that no amount is due or charged in excess from the complainant by the answering opposite parties. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed without being any merits.

 

5.                Notice issued for the service of opposite party no.4 duly served. But despite that none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.4. As such, opposite party no.4 was proceeded against ex-parte.

6.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

7.                On the other hand, opposite party no.1 tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Sharmendra Chaudhry, Manager (Law), Tata Motors Ex.OP-1/1  and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.1. Whereas, Sh.Inder Mohan Pal Singh, Law officer of opposite party nos.2 & 3 tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP-2, 3/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-2, 3/2 to Ex.OP-2, 3/6 and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

9.                The case of the complainant is that he approached to opposite parties for the purchase of new Car Tata Tiago. The deal was finalized by opposite party nos.2 to 4 for a total sum of Rs.4,10,000/- plus old Tata Nano Car of the complainant in exchange. The said amount includes the car plus insurance (Dep Cap), RC and number plates. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- through NEFT to opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,46,511/- was transferred from HDFC account of the complainant to opposite party no.2. He paid Rs.3450/- in cash to opposite party nos.3 & 4, in this way he paid total amount of Rs.4,09,961/- and also handed over his old Nano car to opposite party nos.2 to 4. The opposite parties issued receipts regarding these payments and delivered the Tata Tiago Car to complainant. Opposite party no.3 applied for the RC with District Transport Officer and deposited an amount of Rs.32,338/- for the same. The complainant received the cover note of insurance policy of the vehicle through opposite party no.3 for the period 01.02.2017 to 31.01.2018, in which, the premium amount was mentioned as Rs.9610/-, instead of Rs.19,762/- received by opposite party nos.2 to 4 for insurance. He also came to know that opposite party nos.2 to 4 received Rs.4800/- excess from the complainant as documents handling charges, which the opposite parties were not liable to receive from the complainant. As such, the opposite parties received about Rs.15,000/- in excess than the actual price. He contacted to opposite parties many times for the refund of this amount, but they did not respond. On the other hand, opposite parties admitted that complainant purchased a new Tata Tiago Car from them. They argued that the showroom price of the vehicle was Rs.4,18,693/-. They submitted that amount of Rs.9610/- was charged for Dep Cap insurance, Rs.32,338/- was charged on account of registration charges totalling Rs.4,60,641/-. Out of this amount, opposite party nos.2 & 3 received Rs.2,46,511/- from HDFC Bank from whom the complainant got finance his vehicle  on 04.02.2017. The complainant paid Rs.1,60,000/- through NEFT on 01.02.2017 and Rs.3450/- in cash and amount of Rs.45,000/- was also adjusted as price of his old Nano car, which was given in exchange. Thus, the complainant had paid the total amount of Rs.4,54,961/- to opposite party nos.2 & 3 and receipts regarding all these payments were duly issued to complainant. After adjusting the amount paid by the complainant an amount of Rs.5680/- was remained balance towards the complainant. On request of complainant opposite party no.2 had given discount of remaining amount of Rs.5680/- to complainant. From all these facts, it is clear that no amount had been charged in excess from the complainant by opposite parties. It is wrong that opposite party nos.2 & 3 received Rs.19,762/- as insurance premium instead of Rs.9610/-. It is further denied that they received Rs.4800/- as documents handling charges or loan processing fee. The complainant never paid this amount to opposite parties. The entire amount paid by the complainant duly adjusted in his account and receipts regarding all the payments were duly issued.

10.              We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments lead by ld. counsel for the parties. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties charged excess amount as insurance premium from him. He alleged that opposite parties charged Rs.19,762/- as insurance premium and issued cover note for Rs.9610/- and also charged Rs.4800/- as document handling charges from him for which the opposite parties were not liable to receive. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.4,09,961/- to opposite party nos.2 and 3 plus his old Nano car in exchange as price of the new car. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant made payment of Rs.4,09,961/-. They further admitted that he gave his old Nano car in exchange, which was adjusted for Rs.45,000/-. They submitted that the showroom price of the vehicle was Rs.4,18,693/- and they charged Rs.9610/- as insurance and Rs.32,338/- was charged as registration charges and this amount comes to Rs.4,60,641/-, whereas out of this amount, the complainant paid Rs.4,09,961/- plus Rs.45,000/- as price of his old Nano car. As such, the complainant paid total Rs.4,54,961/- out of Rs.4,60,641/- i.e. total on road price of the vehicle and the remaining amount of Rs.5680/- was given as discount to complainant. In this way nothing has been charged in excess from the complainant. Opposite parties admitted that the payments mentioned above made by the complainant to opposite party nos.2 & 3 except these payments, the complainant did not make any other payment to opposite parties. They duly produced the statement of account of complainant and also gave detail of payments adjusted by them.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant is failed to prove that he ever made payment of Rs.19,762/- for insurance of the vehicle to opposite parties and also failed to prove that opposite parties ever received Rs.4800/- as documents handling charges from him as alleged. In these circumstances, the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 19.07.2017

                                                (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                        Member                                President