STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Ramesh Chand Saini S/o Sh.Mohan Lal Saini, H.No.2537, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant/Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Tata Motors Passengers Car Business unit through its General Manager KD-03, Car Plant, Sector 15 and 15-A, PCNTDA Chikhali, Pune-410501.

2.     Chandigarh Tata Motors through its Manager, SCO No.170-171-172, 1st Floor, 17-C, Chandigarh - 160017.

3.     Mr.Deepak Joshi, Managing Director, Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85 Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh now shifted in 196, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

4.     Mr.Sartaj, Manager Tata Motors Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85 Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh now shifted in 196, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

5.     Mr.Gagandeep (Team Leader) Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh, now shifted in 196, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh. 

6.     Mr.Devender Thakur (Sales Executive) Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85, Industrial Area, Phase 2, Chandigarh now shifted in 196, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

                                .…..Respondents/Opposite Parties 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,                    MEMBER

Argued by:   

Sh.Ramesh Chand Saini, Appellant in person, alongwith his son Sh.Yogesh Saini.

PER MRS.NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a passenger car Tata Indigo ECS BS4 from Opposite Party No.3 vide invoice dated 22.2.2011. He approached Opposite Party No.3 for purchasing the said vehicle on 22.11.2011 after reading the advertisement flashed in the daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 14.11.2011. It was stated that Opposite Party No.6 met the complainant in the office of Opposite Party No.3 and told him that the total price of the car was Rs.5,73,236/- and gave the breakup as under :-

                “Rs.5,56,012/-           Cost of the car.

                Rs.3,000/-                 Logostic Charges.

                Rs.100/-                    Temporary No. Charges.

                Rs.14124/-                Insurance Charges.”

As there was an exchange offer, on the purchase of new car from Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, as per the advertisement dated 14.11.2011, the complainant gave the old Maruti Esteem Car bearing registration No.CH04F-8766 which was in the name of his son Mr.Yogesh Saini. Opposite Parties No.4 to 6  agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards cost of the old car and Rs.40,000/- as exchange bonus. It was further stated that they agreed to give cash discount of  Rs.12,000/-, employee discount of Rs.2500/- and Rs.1736/- towards miscellaneous discount. In this way, the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.4,87,000/- in cash, and rest of the amount of Rs.86,236/- was to be adjusted by the Opposite Parties. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.4,87,000/- vide receipt and he was to get a bill of Rs.5,73,236/- but Opposite Party No.3 issued a bill only for Rs.4,99,776/- including concession of Rs.49,987/-. The bill was also given to the complainant on the next day as on that day, he was not having his Employee Identity Card and PAN Card of his son. It was further stated that by giving the bill of lesser amount illegally, the Opposite Parties cheated not only the complainant but also the Government because if they had given the bill of Rs.5,73,236/- then the VAT which was to be paid would have increased. In this way the Opposite Parties misappropriated the amount of the complainant and cheated him. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.14,124/- was charged from the complainant towards insurance charges, but the cover note was issued to him for Rs.12,809/-. In this way an amount of Rs.1315/- was misappropriated and after a lot of agitation, the Opposite Parties returned the amount of Rs.1315/- vide cheque No.371402 dated 2.12.2011. It was further stated that the issuance of a cover note of lesser amount, reduced the valuation of the car of the complainant because actually he paid Rs.5,73,236/- to the Opposite Parties but the bill was only of an amount of Rs.4,99,776/-. In case the car was stolen or met with an accident then the complainant could claim insurance money only on the billed amount and on the amount shown in the cover note. It was further stated that it was the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority, as per the advertisement but they did not fulfill this condition.   It was further stated that an amount of Rs.12,809/- taken as insurance charges, also needed to be refunded by the Opposite Parties to him. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their written version,      Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 stated that Tata Motors Limited is the company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and is the renowned manufacturer of various types of commercial vehicles and passenger cars. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have appointed dealers, who are selling the vehicles at their own level and there was no deficiency in service being established against them. It was further stated that the relationship existing between the Opposite Parties is on principal to principal basis and they could not be held liable for any independent act. It was further stated that the complainant had leveled serious allegations of fraud and cheating which could not be decided by this Forum. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were not a party to the alleged insurance policy, if any, obtained by the complainant and they had not received any amount from the complainant nor the dealer had passed any extra amount to them.  It was further stated that, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    In their written version,      Opposite Parties No.3 to 5 stated that the total cost of the car was Rs.5,56,012/- plus logistic charges of Rs.3,000/- plus charges for temporary registration number Rs.100/- and insurance charges Rs.14,124/-, totaling Rs.5,73,236/-. At the relevant time, cash discount of Rs.1,3,736/- was given alongwith corporate discount of Rs.2500/- plus price of the old car of the complainant was Rs.30,000/-. The complainant was also given an exchange bonus of Rs.40,000/- and a sum of Rs.4,87,000/- was received from him. The vehicle was sold to the complainant on 22.11.2011 vide invoice of the same date for a total sum of Rs.4,99,766/-. It was further stated that the complainant was twisting the facts that if the amount of Rs.30,000/- was added as the price of the old car, the total price comes to Rs.5,17,000/- and if the amount of insurance charges, logistic charges and temporary registration charges was deducted, the figure comes to Rs.4,99,770/- as per the invoice. It was admitted that Opposite Party No.1 is manufacturer of passenger cars and Opposite Parties No.4 to 6 are the employees of M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Limited, which is the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the vehicle was purchased from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 22.11.2011 by the complainant as per his own choice. It was further stated that the name of Opposite Party No.6 was wrongly written as Deepak Thakur. It was further stated that no illegality was committed by the Opposite Parties. It was denied that any amount of Rs.1315/- of the complainant was misappropriated. It was further denied that the Opposite Parties had agreed to get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority. It was further stated that it was the duty of the complainant to complete the formalities, before the Registering Authority, UT, Chandigarh. It was denied that the complainant was entitled to the refund of Rs.12,809/-.  It was further stated that, Opposite Parties No.3 to 5 were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.                    Opposite Party No.6 adopted the written reply and evidence of Opposite Party No.3 to 5.

6.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

8.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

9.                    We have heard the appellant, in person, along with his son Sh.Yogesh Saini, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.                 It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant purchased a passenger car Tata Indigo ECS BS4 from Opposite Party No.3 in exchange offer vide invoice dated 22.2.2011 after reading the advertisement published in the daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 14.11.2011 and Opposite Parties No.4 to 6 agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards cost of the old Maruti Esteem car and Rs.40,000/- as exchange bonus. OP No.3 agreed to give cash discount of Rs.12,000/-, employee discount of Rs.2500/- and Rs.1736/- towards miscellaneous discount and in this way, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,87,000/- as cash and rest of the amount of Rs.86,236/- was to be adjusted by the Opposite Parties, against the total price.  

11.                 The son of the appellant namely Sh.Yogesh Saini, vehemently submitted that the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering service and also indulged into unfair trade practice  because the total price of the car, in question, was Rs.5,73,236/- but Opposite Party No.3 issued the bill of the lesser  amount i.e. Rs.4,99,776/- (Annexure C-3) and in this way it not only cheated the appellant but also misappropriated the amount.  However, we do not find any merit in this submission because Opposite Party No.3 in its written statement filed before the District Forum categorically stated that it issued the bill, Annexure C-3 of the amount, which it received from the complainant after making necessary deductions as per the advertisement.   IN rebuttal, the complainant did not adduce any document vide which he could prove that he ever paid extra amount as mentioned in the invoice aforesaid. The submission of the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit is, thus, rejected.

12.                 The second limb of the argument of the son of the appellant was that Opposite Party No.3 was to get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority, but it neither got the same registered with the Registering Authority nor it paid the registration charges and the appellant had to pay the registration charges of Rs.10500/- from his own pocket for registration of the same and he is, thus, entitled to the refund of Rs.10,500/- as registration charges. There is no merit, in this submission of the appellant, because there was no mention of such condition in the tax invoice, Annexure C-3 and, as such, it could  not be said that it was  the responsibility of Opposite Party No.3 to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority. Admittedly, Opposite Party No.3 had given the temporary registration certificate to the complainant and it was for the complainant to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority after completing the requisite formalities. Even otherwise, if the complainant was of the view that the registration charges were to be paid by Opposite Party No.3, as per Annexure C-1, then he should have agitated the matter at the time of purchase of the vehicle with it, but he did not do so. Rather the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle, by signing the tax invoice (Annexure C-3) by acknowledging the terms and conditions mentioned therein and, as such, he had no locus standi to raise this objection at this stage. The appellant was, thus, not entitled to the refund Rs.10500/- as registration charges from Opposite Party No.3.

13.                 It was next submitted that Opposite Party No.3, arbitrarily charged a sum of Rs.12,809/- towards insurance charges  of the vehicle and it was liable to refund the same to him. This submission is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the said amount of Rs.12809/- was paid to the United India Insurance Company for insuring the vehicle of the complainant and the same is also evident from the cover note (Annexure C-7).  Thus, the submission of the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail and same is rejected.  

14.                 With these observations, we are of the considered view that the District  Forum was right in holding that there was no deficiency, in rendering service or indulgence into unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission and,  as such, the appeal  is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage.

15.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16.                 Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after compliance

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

03.01.2013                               [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                Sd/-                                              [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER