Kabal Singh Chadha i.e. K.S. Chadha - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Authorized Dealer for Maruti Cars & Commercial Vehicles - Opp.Party(s)
11 Feb 2010
ORDER
CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - I Plot No 5- B, Sector 19 B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160 019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1260 of 2009
1. Kabal Singh Chadha i.e. K.S. Chadhason of Sh. Amar Singh aged about 65 Years R/o House No. 2501, SEctor-22/C, chandigarh
...........Respondent(s)
For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :
Dated : 11 Feb 2010
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complaint Case No : 1260 of 2009 Date of Institution : 02.09.2009 Date of Decision : 11.02.2010 Kabal Singh Chadha i.e. K.S.Chadha son of Sh.Amar Singh, aged about 65 years, resident of H.No.2501, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh . Complainant V E R S U S 1] The Authorised Dealer for Maruti Cars & Commercial Vehicles, Modern Automobiles, 4 M.W. Industrial Area-I, Chandigarh. 2] The Commercial Manager, Maruti Udhyog Limited, Maruti Complex, Delhi Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, India. , . ..Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Ravinder Singh, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Adv. for OP No.1. Sh.S.R.Bansal, Adv. for OP No.2. PER SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT The complainant visited OP No.1 for the purchase of one Swift VDI white colour Car. He was asked to make a demand draft of Rs.4,39,860/- only in the name of CSD, Jalandhar. OP No.1 also issued a bill for the said amount vide Ann.C-4 mentioning therein a waiting period of 3 to 4 months at the time of L.S. Order date. Accordingly, the complainant issued a demand draft, dated 27.12.2008 for Rs.4,39,860/- (Ann.C-5) in favour of CSD payable at Jalandhar and booked the said car. He was asked to wait upto 3/4 months only for receiving the said car. However, the same was not delivered even after the said period. In the month of June, 2009 the complainant was told to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- for the insurance of the vehicle, which he deposited. It is averred that OP No.1 had received the said amount vide receipt Ann.C-6 but did not mention it as an amount of insurance. However, the OP No.1 later on vide letter dated 11.7.2009 (Ann.C-7) refused to give the said car to the complainant saying that the Sale Tax Authorities, Chandigarh have raised objection to sale of Motor Vehicles through CSD and have demanded additional VAT @12.5%. It is also averred that OP No.1 at the time of booking told that the amount of Rs.4,39,860/- was the full & final amount. It did not mention that the said amount does not include the VAT charges, otherwise the complainant would have booked the said car in Haryana State from where he would get the minimum benefit of 54,000/- approximately and in this way they have cheated the complainant. It is asserted that OP No.1 retained the demand draft of Rs.4,39,860/- for more than the period they promised to deliver the car due to which the complainant had to suffer loss of interest. It is also asserted that the complainant had requested OP No.1 many times by making personal visits as well as through calls for delivery of the car but they made false excuses on one pretext or the other and failed to deliver it due to which the complainant as well as his ailing wife had to suffer great mental tension and physical harassment. Ultimately, a legal notice was sent to OPs vide Ann.C-8/A but to no avail. Hence, this complaint. 2] OP No.1 Modern Automobiles filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case. It is admitted that complainant had obtained performa invoice to get his vehicle booked through CSD but no bill amounting of Rs.4,39,860/-, as alleged, was issued by them. It is also admitted that the approximate waiting period was mentioned in the proforma invoice. It is stated that the demand draft in case of booking of the vehicle through CSD was deposited in the CSD Deport and not with the dealership. It is also stated that the complainant had made concocted story of depositing the insurance amount of Rs.10,000/- with the dealer on demand of OP No.1, as alleged, whereas the said amount was deposited by him at his own for adjusting the amount in Maruti Insurance at the time of delivery of the car and this amount was deposited against proper receipt mentioning M.I. therein. Moroever, the complainant had already been informed that this amount can be taken back by him at any time. It is further stated that the cause of charging extra amount i.e. VAT @12.5% had arisen on the objections raised by Chandigarh Administration Excise & Taxation Department vide their notice Ann.A/R1/1 and the same was immediately informed to the customer/complainant vide letter dated 11.7.2009, so the question of intimating this fact at the time of issuing Performa Invoice did not arise when no such VAT objection/notice was served. It is submitted that the complainant has deposited the booking amount with CSD and as such the answering OP/Dealer has not gained anything, so any loss suffered by the complainant in this regard cannot be attributed to the answering OP. Denying all other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua OP No.1. 3] In the reply filed by OP No.2-Maruti Udyog, preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that complainant is not a consumer qua OP No.2; no cause of action has arisen against OP No.2 and the complaint is not maintainable against OP No.2. It is submitted that OP No.2 sells vehicles so manufactured by it to its dealers under the dealership agreement and the dealers sell the vehicles to their customers against their own contract for sale & by their own invoice and sale certificate as per Motor Vehicles Act. The answering OP neither invoices nor earmarks any individual vehicle in favour of any individual customer at the time of dispatch from its factory to its dealer. It is also submitted that the alleged sale transaction of the vehicle in question has taken place between the complainant and OP No.1 on the terms & conditions of sale settled between them, for which OP No.2 was not privy to the alleged transaction. Rest of the allegations have been denied being not related to OP No.2 and it is prayed that the complaint qua OP No.2 be dismissed. 4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6] It is admitted by the OP that it issued a proforma invoice copy of which is Annexure C-4 on 25.12.2008 mentioning the price of Swift VDI vehicle as Rs.4,39,860/-. The contention of the complainant is that on 27.12.2008, he deposited the entire amount through a bank draft with the Canteen Stores Deptt. (in short CSD) but even inspite of that the delivery of the vehicle was not given to him till 11.07.2009. The OP on that date i.e. 11.07.2009 issued a letter Annexure C-7 alleging that the Sale Tax Authorities of U.T. Chandigarh have raised objection to sale of a motor vehicle through CSD and have demanded additional VAT @12.5%. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the complainant is that first he was made to wait for the vehicle for more than 6 months though the vehicles during this time had been received by the OP and were delivered to the customers and secondly they started demanding VAT subsequently and did not tell this fact to the complainant in their proforma invoice copy of which is Annexure C-4. On the other hand the contention of the OP is that infact no payment nor even an indent was received by them either from the complainant or from the CSD till 10.06.2009 and therefore in the absence of consideration there was no binding contract between the parties. Admittedly the complainant or the CSD had not booked the vehicle with the OP by depositing the booking amount. No amount has been paid even till 10.06.2009 on which date the complainant paid a nominal amount of Rs.10,000/- vide Annexure C-6 which was towards MI (Maruti Insurance) payment against Swift VDI. No valid contract therefore came into existence between the parties under which the OP may be bound to deliver the vehicle, as no sale consideration or booking amount was paid nor any indent was sent to the OP. There is therefore no deficiency in service on their part if the vehicle was not delivered promptly because the price of the vehicle or the booking amount has not been paid. 7] As regards VAT the contention of the OP is that no VAT was payable on this vehicle on 25.12.2008, when Annexure C-4, was issued and the same was levied by the Sale Tax Authorities subsequently as is clear from the letter Annexure R1/1 dated 11.06.2009. Since VAT was not being paid by the purchasers on 25.12.2008 the OPs therefore issued Annexure C-4 to inform the complainant about the price of the vehicle prevalent on that date. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP with respect to the issuance of Annexure C-4. 8] The Learned Counsel for the complainant has also argued that the complainant would have got the vehicle booked in Haryana and would have availed the benefit of Rs.54,000/- if the OP had told him that VAT was payable in U.T. This argument also is of no help to the complainant. It was for the complainant to verify as to wherefrom he should purchase the vehicle. The purchaser is to make inquires at its own level and to book the vehicle at the place where he can get it at lowest rates. The OP was not to render any advice to him in this respect. As mentioned earlier no VAT was being paid by the purchasers on the vehicles on 25.12.2008 the OP therefore could not inform the complainant that VAT was payable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in this respect. 9] It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that he had deposited a sum of Rs.4,39,860/- with the CSD and therefore he could not get interest thereon during the period of more than 6 months. Admittedly this amount was not deposited with the OP nor has it been paid by the CSD to the OP. If the amount has not been deposited or paid to the OP, they are not liable to pay any damages towards the loss of interest to the complainant. The complainant may or may not claim the same from the CSD which did not book the vehicle and did not pay the amount promptly to the OP for its purchase. The OP is not liable for any inaction on the part of the CSD which is not even a party in this complaint. 10] The Learned Counsel for the complainant has then referred to Annexure C-17, which is the scheme floated by OP-2 for booking of Maruti vehicles. He has referred to page 7 of the same showing that the complete range of vehicles of Maruti Suzuki can be registered through CSD. He then referred to page 8 and 9 of Annexure C-17 showing the procedure as to how a car is to be booked. In view of these instructions, the procedure of booking of a car at any CSD is as follows: Submission of an indent for purchase to the selected area Depot. Full payment by a Demand Draft in favour of `Canteen Stores Department Public Fund Account (Main)` payable at selected location. Serving officer, to attach copy of salary slip and PAN number. Retired officer, to attach copy of discharge slip/preliminary pension order and PAN Number. Once booking is complete, Canteen Stores Department will make an indent of purchase and send it to concerned dealer for processing of the order and delivery of the vehicle. In view of this procedure, the car is booked with the CSD and the CSD is to issue an indent of purchase and send it to the concerned dealer for processing of the order. The complainant claims to have booked the car with the CSD on 27.12.2008 when he submitted demand draft Annexure C-5 with the CSD. Thereafter the CSD was to make an indent of purchase and send it to the concerned dealer for processing of the order and delivery of the vehicle. The booking of the car with the CSD would not amount to booking of the car with the dealer. The car would be booked with the dealer on the date, when CSD would give an indent of purchase and send it to OP-1 for processing of the order. In the present case no such indent was sent to OP-1. The Learned Counsel for the complainant in this respect has produced a letter Annexure C-25 which shows that no separate indent of purchase is placed from the Depot on the dealer other than the papers issued and handed over to the indenter. It shows that the CSD is not following the proper procedure for booking of the car as required by the Maruti Udyog and therefore no legal and binding contract came into existence between the parties. As regards the handing over the papers to the indenter, again there is no evidence, if the said papers were ever handed over by the indenter i.e. the complainant with OP-1 on that date. The contention of the OP-1 is that infact these papers were handed over to them on 10.06.2009 and when the papers were being processed, Annexure R-1/1 was received from the Sale Tax Authorities on 11.06.2009 levying VAT on the sale of the cars. It is therefore clear that the CSD has not followed proper procedure for booking the car with OP-1, no legal and binding contract came into existence between the parties under which the dealer was liable to make the delivery of the vehicle. 11] In the present case the amount was deposited by the complainant with the CSD and CSD was to place an indent on OP-1 in view of the instructions issued by OP-2. If the CSD did not follow those instructions or did not place the indent (and it is admitted by the CSD vide Annexure C-25 that they did not place any indent on OP-1) the deficiency if any may be on the part of the CSD. As regards the placing of indent by the complainant again there is no proof if any such indent was placed before 10.06.2009 by the complainant. However this fact cannot be taken to its logical conclusion in the absence of CSD being a party to the present complaint. 12] It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that infact the CSD was working as an agent of the OPs with which entire amount was deposited vide Annexure C-5, which bind the OPs. This argument also is devoid of merit. In fact the CSD was acting as an agent of the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle. The complainant had deposited the amount with the CSD and it was the duty of the CSD to procure the vehicle for ex-soldiers. Otherwise also no agency is proved to exist between the CSD and OP-1. The OP-1 cannot even be considered as an agent of OP-2 because they have one to one relationship with respect to each vehicle. The instructions issued by OP-2 are to be followed by OP-1 but it is debatable that if the same are not followed by OP-1 that OP-1 would be liable for default. The question of CSD being an agent of OP-1 therefore does not arise. 13] It is also contended by the complainant that the OP-1 was having fraudulent intention of cheating him from the very beginning and he has therefore filed a complaint against it before the Learned CJM, Chandigarh. The Consumer Fora do not entertain any complaints of cheating. Otherwise also it is doubtful if the offence of cheating is made out from the facts mentioned by the complainant. 14] It is also argued by the Learned Counsel for the complainant that the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and therefore should be punished accordingly. We do not find any unfair trade practice having been adopted by the OPs. When the complainant went to OP-1 to obtain the quotation, the proforma invoice Annexure C-4 was promptly issued. When the complainant went to deposit the amount of insurance, he was allowed to deposit the same and a receipt was issued. If the complainant did not book the vehicle or did not pay the price thereof, the OPs were not liable to deliver any vehicle to him. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. 15] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint. The same is accordingly dismissed. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. Sd/- Sd/- 11.02.2010 Feb.11, 2010 [Dr.(Mrs) Madhu Behl] [Jagroop Singh Mahal] Member President
DR. MADHU BEHL, MEMBER
HONABLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT
,
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
