Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/101/2016

G. Lalitha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory RNS Motors, Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayanarao

26 Apr 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28.10.2016

DISPOSED      ON:26.04.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 101/2016

 

DATED:  26^th APRIL 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	G. Lalitha W/o G. Kishore, Major, Jawahar Palace, Vasavi Colony, Challakere, Chitradurga District.     (Rep by Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Authorized Signatory, RNS Motors Ltd., Authorized Maruti Dealer, P.B. Road, Unakal, Hubbali-580 030.   2. The Authorized Signatory, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Shiva Avenue, II Floor, Gokul Road, Hubbali-580 030.   3. The Authorized Signatory, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Regional Office, No. 204, II Floor, Embassy Classic, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore-560 001.   4. The Authorized Signatory, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Registered Office, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110071.     (Rep by Sri.Basavaprabhu Hosakeri, Advocate for OP No.1 & Sri.C.M. Veeranna, Advocate for OP No.2 to 4)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP No.1 to repay Rs.67,295/- towards the excess amount by him with interest and direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 02.04.2016 he intended to purchase Maruti Vitara Brezza (ZDI+D) Car and approached and enquired about the price pattern and paid a sum of Rs.21,000/- through RTGS on 02.04.2016 and booked the above said car against the ex-showroom price of Rs.9,90,705/-.  It is further submitted that, after waiting for more than 4 months, OP No.1 informed that, the booked vehicle is ready for delivery in the month of July.  By that time, OP No.1 has sent the pro-forma invoice for the ex-showroom price for
Rs.9,90,705/- dated 22.07.2016.  Accordingly, the complainant has approached his Bank and sanctioned loan for purchase of said car on 30.07.2016 from the State Bank of Mysore, Challakere Branch have remitted Rs.9,70,000/- to the OP No.1 Bank i.e., State Bank of Mysore, Hubbali Branch by cheque transfer and the said amount was credited to the account of OP No.1 on 30.07.2016.  But, the OP No.1 has raised the invoice on 02.08.2016 vide Invoice No.VSL 16000823 of Rs.10,11,060/- including VAT 14.5%, it is all because of delay in processing the transactions.  The complainant has incurred an extra amount of Rs.20,355/-.  Moreover the bill amount also cross more than Rs.10 lakhs, for this the OP No.1 has further collected Rs.10,110/- towards TCS @ 1%, due to the said act of the OP, complainant has paid further Rs.30,465/- towards hike in vehicle price and TCS 1%, which is a deficiency of service and dereliction of duties rendered for which, they are liable to pay compensation.  It is further submitted that, the OP No.1 has raised the invoice price less than Rs.10 lakhs to ex-showroom vehicle, the road tax would of Rs.1,53,956/-.  Due to invoice raised on 02.08.2016, the price is more than Rs.10 lakhs.  The slab of road tax is also increased by Rs.36,830/-.  By the act of the OP No.1, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.36,830/-.  Due to delay in raising invoice from the OP, the complainant has incurred excess amount of Rs.67,295/- in three heads i.e., difference in ex-showroom price Rs.20,355/-, TCS collected extra 1% at Rs.10,110/- and difference in road tax at Rs.36,830/-, which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, for which the OPs are liable to pay compensation of Rs.67,295/- to the complainant for the financial loss and mental agony and loss of time and business.  The complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs on 02.09.2016, the same was served to OPs on 28.09.2016.  OP No.1 has replied by denying all the allegations and refused to give compensation for the act done by the OPs.  The cause of action to file this complaint arise on 28.09.2016 when the OP No.1 has replied to the notice which are within the jurisdiction of this Forum and therefore, prayed for allowing of the complaint.      

3.      On service of notice, OP No.1 appeared before this Forum through Advocate Sri. Basavaprabhu Hosakeri and filed version.  On behalf of OP No.2 to 4 Sri. C.M. Veeranna, Advocate appeared and filed version. 

OP No.1 submitted that, the complaint filed by the complainant is without jurisdiction and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence, on this ground only, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.  Further it is submitted that, the complainant has purchased at Hubli from OP No.1 is admitted.  Further it is admitted that, the complainant has paid Rs.21,000/- through RTGS/NEFT to OP No.1 and booked Maruti Vitara Brezza subject to vehicle booking.  It is admitted that, the booked vehicle is ready for delivery in the month of July and it is true that, this OP has sent pro-forma invoice for ex-showroom price.  It is not known to OP No.1 that, the complainant approached his bank and sanctioned loan for Rs.9,70,000/- for purchase of Maruti Car on 30.07.2016.  The allegations made in para-4 and 5 of the complaint are denied as false.  It is true that, at the time of booking and taking the delivery of the vehicle, OP No.1 has assured that, they will provide good service and prompt action from their side and there is no deficiency on its part.   It is true that, the notice of complainant was replied.  The complainant has suppressed the real/true facts relating to transactions.  It is true that, the complainant has booked car and paid advance of Rs.21,000/- and the vehicle was ready for delivery on making the payment balance amount.  After the complainant contacted the OP for taking the delivery of the vehicle, by that time, the OP has received MSIL website and shows that, the price of the vehicle was raised for Rs.20,355/-.   Hence, this OP has no option to raise the invoice as per the prevailing price on the date of effecting delivery.  It is further that, the complainant has to pay more than the booked price and he has made several enquiries with the MSIL on 02.08.2016 and after discussion with the MSIL, the complainant consented to make extra payment and accordingly he made the extra payment.  All other allegations made in the complainant are denied as false and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

OP No.2 to 4 filed version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and they have not committed any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant has claimed the excess amount and compensation with the OP No.1.  The present complaint against OPs 2 to 4 are not maintainable.  Admittedly, the complainant booked and taken the delivery of vehicle from OP No.1 and OPs 2 to 4 are no way concerned to this transaction.  The other allegations made in para-4 and 5 of the complaint are denied as false.  Further it is submitted that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The OPs 2 to 4 have not received any amount from the complainant and therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is to be dismissed for mis-joinder of necessary parties.        

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-13 were got marked.  On behalf of OPs no documents have been got marked.    

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP No.1 has committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by receiving excess amount from the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant intended to purchase Maruti Vitara Brezza (ZDI+D) Car and approached and enquired about the price pattern on 02.04.2016 and paid a sum of Rs.21,000/- through RTGS on the same day and booked the above said car against the ex-showroom price of Rs.9,90,705/-.                  In the month of July, OP No.1 informed that, the booked vehicle is ready for delivery and sent the pro-forma invoice for the                             ex-showroom price for              
Rs.9,90,705/- dated 22.07.2016.   The complainant has approached his Bank and sanctioned loan for purchase of said car on 30.07.2016 from the State Bank of Mysore, Challakere Branch have remitted Rs.9,70,000/- to the OP No.1 Bank i.e., State Bank of Mysore, Hubbali Branch by cheque transfer and the said amount was credited to the account of OP No.1 on 30.07.2016.   But, the OP No.1 has raised the invoice on 02.08.2016 vide Invoice No.VSL 16000823 of Rs.10,11,060/- including VAT 14.5% which was an extra amount of Rs.20,355/-.  Moreover the bill amount also crossed more than Rs.10 lakhs, for this the OP No.1 has further collected Rs.10,110/- towards TCS @ 1% and OP No.1 has collected Rs.30,465/- towards hike in vehicle price and TCS 1%, which is a deficiency of service and dereliction of duties rendered for which, they are liable to pay compensation.  The OP No.1 has raised the invoice price less than Rs.10 lakhs to ex-showroom vehicle, the road tax would of Rs.1,53,956/-.  Due to invoice raised on 02.08.2016, the price is more than Rs.10 lakhs.  The slab of road tax is also increased by Rs.36,830/-.  By the act of the OP No.1, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.36,830/-.  Due to delay in raising invoice from the OP, the complainant has incurred excess amount of Rs.67,295/- in three heads i.e., difference in ex-showroom price Rs.20,355/-, TCS collected extra 1% at Rs.10,110/- and difference in road tax at Rs.36,830/-, which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, for which the OPs are liable to pay compensation of Rs.67,295/- to the complainant for the financial loss and mental agony and loss of time and business. 

 9.     In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Order booking/commitment checklist marked as Ex.A-1, Sale Invoice dated 02.08.2016 for Rs.10,11,060/- marked as Ex.A-2, Receipts dated 04.08.2016 marked as Ex.A-3 and 4, Delivery challan dated 02.08.2016 marked as Ex.A-5, Customer request form for extended warranty amendment/cancellation marked as Ex.A-6, letter dated 02.09.2016 marked as Ex.A-7, letter dated 08.09.2016 sent by RNS Motors to the complainant marked as Ex.A-8, letter dated 08.09.2016 sent by RNS Motors to the complainant marked as Ex.A-9, Postal receipts marked as Ex.A-10, Served acknowledgements marked as Ex.A-11 and 12 and reply notice dated 28.09.2016 marked as Ex.A-13.

10.    OP No.1 in its version submitted that, the complainant has purchased the Maruti Vitara Brezza at Hubli from OP No.1 is admitted by paying Rs.21,000/- through RTGS/NEFT to OP No.1 and booked the same subject to vehicle booking.  The booked vehicle was ready for delivery in the month of July.  It is admitted that, this OP has sent pro-forma invoice for ex-showroom price.  It is not known to OP No.1 that, the complainant approached his bank and sanctioned loan for Rs.9,70,000/- for purchase of Maruti Car on 30.07.2016.  The complainant has suppressed the real/true facts relating to transactions and the complainant has booked the car and paid advance of Rs.21,000/- and the vehicle was ready for delivery on making the payment balance amount.  After the complainant contacted the OP for taking the delivery of the vehicle, by that time, the OP has received MSIL website and shows that, the price of the vehicle was raised for Rs.20,355/-.   Hence, this OP has no option to raise the invoice as per the prevailing price on the date of effecting delivery.  It is further that, the complainant has to pay more than the booked price and he has made several enquiries with the MSIL on 02.08.2016 and after discussion with the MSIL, the complainant consented to make extra payment and accordingly he made the extra payment.  All other allegations made in the complainant are denied as false and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

OP No.2 to 4 filed version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and they have not committed any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant has claimed the excess amount and compensation with the OP No.1.  The present complaint against OPs 2 to 4 are not maintainable.  Admittedly, the complainant booked and taken the delivery of vehicle from OP No.1 and OPs 2 to 4 are no way concerned to this transaction.  The other allegations made in para-4 and 5 of the complaint are denied as false.  Further it is submitted that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  The OPs 2 to 4 have not received any amount from the complainant and therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is to be dismissed for mis-joinder of necessary parties.      

11.    In support of its contention, the OPs have not filed any affidavit evidence and failed to address their arguments.

12.   On hearing the arguments of complainant and OPs 2 to 4 and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, ………………Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.67,295/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

The complaint filed as against OP No.2 to 4 are hereby dismissed. 

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 26/04/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. Anand Nadagoundar, Manager (Legal) of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-
02	Ex-A-2:-
03	Ex-A-3:-
04	Ex-A-4:-
05	Ex-A-5:-
06	Ex-A-6:-
07	Ex-A-7:-
08	Ex.A-8:-

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-NIL-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**