Date of Order : 25.02.2017
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 12,225/- illegally taken by the dealer on various account along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a Chevrolet Spark car from opposite party no. 1 after paying Rs. 2.5 lacks which was sanctioned by State Bank of India, (RACPC) Zonal Office, Patna. The aforesaid car was purchased from authorized dealer vide annexure – 1 i.e. Sale certificate and the aforesaid vehicle was registered as BR – 01AN – 3921. At the time of delivery of the aforesaid car vide annexure – 1, the complainant noticed that the said car was not delivered as per terms contained in invoice no. R00767 dated 31.03.2009 as appeares from annexure – 2.
It has been further asserted that as per annexure – 2 the car was required to be insured at the cash of Rs. 8,246/- but it was insured at the cost of Rs. 7,021/- thus the opposite party no. 1 took Rs. 1,225/- in excess. Apart from it, the accessories were required to be provided for Rs. 6,000/- but no accessories was given to him although the complainant had paid Rs. 8,246/-and Rs. 6,000/- as shown in annexure – 2. When the complainant knew these facts, he immediately informed the bank i.e. opposite party no. 3 vide annexure – 3 stating all the relevant fact and requesting him not to pay opposite party no.1 after deducting Rs. 7,225/- but the bank had paid entire amount i.e. Rs. 2.5 lacks. Thereafter the complainant has filed a petition containing in annexure – 4 to opposite party no. 3 to expedite the receipt of Rs. 7,225/- from the opposite party no. 1 as he has taken the aforesaid in excess.
It has been also asserted that at the time of supply of the aforesaid car, opposite party no. 1 received cash of Rs. 2,500/- on account of supply Teflon coating car and issued a cash receipt not signed by the complainant which has been marked as annexure – 5.
The supplier further took Rs. 1,822/- + tax total amount of Rs. 2,000/- for supplying towel seat cover but no towel seat was supplied further the representative of the dealer took Rs. 500/- for the office expenditure although registration work was done by complainant himself.
The complainant has further asserted that in the advertisement published by general motors vide annexure – 6 it was mentioned that the Chevrolet Spark had offered “No hidden cost” i.e. no maintenance cost, no labour cost, no parts cost for 3 years or Rs. 4,500/- Km whichever is earlier but the dealer demanded Rs. 10,000/- for this purpose which the complainant did not feel it proper to deposit.
The complainant has also written a comprehensive letter to the company (opposite party no. 2) in this respect with a prayer to refund the entire excess amount of Rs. 12,225/- vide annexure – 7 but no action has been taken.
On behalf of opposite party no. 2 a reply has been filed stating therein that as the petitioner is a channel manager facilitator of State Bank of India and he is using the aforesaid vehicle both for personal as well as official purpose hence this forum has got no jurisdiction as the vehicle is being used for commercial purpose.
It has been further asserted that the entire allegation in the complaint petition relates to small matter of pricing which relates to dealer only. The relation between the opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 are principal to principal basis.
In Para – 4 of the counter affidavit the following facts have been asserted, “that in reply to contents of Para – 10 of the complaint, it is stated that the complainant at page 23 of the complaint petition has attached the advertisement in question. From the footnote/asterisk given at the bottom of the advertisement, it may be seen that the 3 years/45000 Km scheme was available only at a price of Rs. 9,999/- and stood described as the cashless ownership offer. This footnote/asterisk is a part of the advertisement and necessary to be gone through since the mention of “No Service Cost” etc. in the advertisement are all subject to and marked by a prominent asterisk which stands elaborated, as stated, below in the advertisement.”
The opposite party no. 2 has simply denied the allegation of the complainant but no documents etc. has been filed.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a preliminary objection has been made stating therein that as the aforesaid car has been used in commercial purpose hence this case is not maintainable. No any documents etc. and the assertion of the complainant has been annexed by the opposite party no. 1 with cogent evidence.
The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the petition of opposite party no. 1 praying to dismiss the same. It has been asserted by the complainant that the vehicle in question is used for his personal and official use and not for commercial use hence the objection is irrelevant.
On behalf of opposite party no. 3 and 4 a reply has been filed. In Para – 6 of it the opposite parties have asserted as follows, “the delivery order dated 31.03.2009 has been issued on the basis of performa invoice dated 28.03.2009 to M/s Pandey Motors Pvt. Ltd. (opposite party no. 2) in which it has been specifically mentioned that a sum of Rs. 2.59 Lack has been sanctioned against the aforesaid order, the car in question was delivered to the complainant on 31.03.2009 which is evident from the vehicle delivery card dated 31.03.2009, it duly signed by the complainant. In this vehicle delivery card has been acknowledged by the complainant that “the interiors and exteriors of the car in a good condition and free from any defects/damage.”
The bank has annexed annexure – A which is delivery order and annexure – B which is vehicle delivery card stating therein that it has been acted as rule and regulation. It has been also stated that in the vehicle delivery card annexure – B it has not mentioned that accessories has not been fitted with car as per peforma invoice.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder to the petition dated 04.01.2012 filed by opposite party no. 3 and 4 has been filed repeating the fact mentioned in complaint petition.
The complainant has also filed a written argument.
We have narrated the facts of the case asserted by the parties in forgoing paragraphs.
The complainant case is that as per annexure – 1 although he has deposited Rs. 8,246/- for insurance but the insurance was done at the cost of Rs. 7,225/- and thus opposite party no. 1 took Rs. 1,225/- excess. It has also been stated that although he has deposited Rs. 6,000/- on account of accessories but accessories were not supplied and he had to purchase accessories in cash after paying Rs. 5,080/- for which no receipt was granted. If this amount is added it comes to Rs. 7,021/-.
From bare perusal of complaint petition and annexure it is crystal clear that opposite party no. 1 have taken Rs. 6,000/- for accessories, difference in insurance is Rs. 1,225/-, amount for teflon coating Rs. 2,500/-, supplier further took Rs. 1,822/-+Tax = 2,000/-, further the representative of the dealer took Rs. 500/- thus the opposite party no. 1 has taken Rs. 12,225/- in excess.
From bare perusal of petition filed on behalf of opposite party no. 1 dated 23.05.2011 and its continuation petition dated 27.10.2011 it is crystal clear that no fact or evidence have been brought on the record to show that the annexures and the assertion of the complainant is dis - believable and hence we have no option but to rely on the annexures and assertion of the complainant which clearly proves that opposite party no. 1 had taken Rs. 12,225/- excess.
So far opposite party no. 2 is concerned there is no allegation of manufacturing defect and so far opposite party no. 3 and 4 are concerned they are the authorities of bank who had simply paid sanctioned amount after receiving annexure – A and B hence no any liabilities can be attached with opposite party no. 3 and 4.
Hence we find and hold that opposite party no. 1 in realizing excess amount from the complainant had committed serious deficiency.
We direct the opposite party no. 1 to refund the excess amount of Rs. 12,225/- ( Rs. Twelve thousand two Hundred Twenty Five only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 will have to pay 10% interest on the amount of Rs. 12,225/- ( Rs. Twelve thousand two Hundred Twenty Five only ) till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
