Haryana

StateCommission

A/1121/2016

SAROJ KUMARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    1121 of 2016

Date of Institution:      23.11.2016

Date of Decision :       04.09.2017

 

Ms. Saroj Kumari wife of Lal Chand Tanwar, Resident of House No.171, Maa Durga Nagar, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

                                                    Versus

1.      The Hyundai Motor India Limited, Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukotta Taluk Kancheepuram, District Tamilnadu, through its Managing Director/Chair Person.

2.      Kaushalya Motors KDB Road, Near K.R. Palace, Kurukshetra, through its Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Argued by:          Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Vineet Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             Shri Munish Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 07^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.                Saroj Kumari-complainant (appellant herein) purchased EON ERA (Hyundai) car bearing registration No.HR-07W-3493 from Kaushalya Motors, KDB Road, near K. R. Palace, Kurukshetra-Opposite Party No.2, vide Sale Letter October 13^th, 2016 (Exhibit C-7) and Invoice regarding payment of an amount of Rs.3,21,217/- (Exhibit C-6).  The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- regarding booking of the car on October 12^th, 2015 vide receipt Exhibit C-11 and payment of an amount of Rs.40,000/- was made vide receipt dated October 13^th, 2015 (Exhibit C-12) in cash.  The above mentioned car vehicle was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company for an amount of Rs.2,95,000/-.  In this way, apart from the above mentioned amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash, the total loan amount of Rs.2,95,000/- has already been paid to the opposite party No.2.   Apart from it, vide advertisement through pamphlet (Exhibit C-10), the opposite party No.1 had offered a discount of an amount of Rs.25,000/- in case the car vehicle is purchased during Navratras days. Apart from it, receipt was issued by the opposite party No.2 on October 13^th, 2015 amounting to Rs.4500/- as logistic charges. In this way, the complainant has already made payment of an amount of Rs.19,283/- in excess of the actual sale price of the car vehicle. The complainant states that she is entitled for refund of excess payment of an amount of Rs.19,283/- plus discount amounting to Rs.25,000/-, total Rs.44,283/-. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to refund an amount of Rs.44,283/- to her already paid in excess and an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

3.                Opposite Party No.2 did not appear in the proceedings of this complaint before the District Forum on the date fixed and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated March 22^nd, 2016.

4.                Opposite Party No.1 – Hyundai Motor India Limited, manufacturer of the car vehicle filed written statement on the plea that the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the relief claimed against the opposite party No.1 as liability of the opposite party No.1 is limited to performance of the car vehicle purchased by the complainant. The complainant has not taken plea regarding poor performance of the car vehicle; therefore it cannot be considered as a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. As per version of the complainant, the opposite party No.2, the dealer of the car vehicle has charged extra amount and benefit of discount amount as promised was not given to the complainant. The opposite party No.1 has taken plea that after inquiry from the opposite party No.2 regarding plea taken by the complainant, information was received that sale of the car vehicle was made as per offer made and no extra amount was charged. The dispute in fact, if any, is in between the complainant and the dealer-opposite party No.2 and not with the opposite party No.1 –manufacturer of the vehicle. As service to be provided to the complainant is the sole responsibility of the dealer, the complainant has no cause of action of any type against the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with cost.

5.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated September 07^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated September 07^th, 2016 the complainant has filed the present appeal with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file.

9.                During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type regarding payment of an amount of Rs.3,21,217/- vide Invoice Exhibit C-6 and Sale Letter Exhibit C-7, payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- at the time of booking of the car vide receipt dated October 12^th, 2015 (Exhibit C-11) and cash payment of an amount of Rs.40,000/- vide receipt dated October 13^th, 2015 (Exhibit C-12). There is also no controversy of any type regarding payment of the remaining sale price amount of Rs.2,95,000/- by Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company in connection with the loan amount sanctioned in favour of the complainant for purchase of the car vehicle against hypothecation.  Regarding the above mentioned payment, there was no controversy of any type in between the parties at the time of arguments.  In this way, the complainant paid total amount of Rs.3,45,000/- to the opposite party No.2 – Kaushalya Motors-Opposite Party No.2 being dealer of the manufacturer.  In this case, written version has been filed by the Opposite Party No.1 Hyundai Motor India Limited-manufacturer of the car vehicle but the opposite party No.2 – Kaushalya Motors (dealer) could not file written version before the District Forum as the opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte. In this way, the opposite party No.2 could not get opportunity to defend its version before the District Forum. However, at the time of arguments, certain documents have been placed on the file by the opposite party No.2.

10.              It is evident from the price list (Annexure-A) of vehicles for sale of Hyundai Motor India Limited provided in the showroom of Kaushalya Motors-opposite party No.2 that Ex-Showroom price of Eon Era car vehicle is mentioned as Rs.3,52,773/-. The Total price of this vehicle including cost of ODEP INS, Logistics, Mats etc is mentioned as Rs.3,69,527/- with effect from August 25^th, 2015.  The Ex-Showroom price is Rs.3,52,773/- after deducting an amount of Rs.25,000/- as discount on account of Navratras festival, as per publication in the pamphlet (Exhibit C-10) Ex-Showroom price stood reduced to Rs.3,27,773/-. It is evident from receipt Nos.3673, 3675, 3676 and 3677, all receipts dated 13^th October, 2015, Annexure-B to Annexure-E, that an amount of Rs.8681/- was spent by the complainant for purchase of accessories. Out of the total amount paid by the complainant, an amount of Rs.8621/- was spent for purchasing accessories. After deducting this amount spent for accessories, the remaining sale price amount to be paid was Rs.3,19,152/-. An amount of Rs.4500/- was shown to have been spent as Logistic Charges. In this way, it clearly appears that no excess amount has been received by the opposite party No.2 from the complainant at the time of purchase of the car vehicle. It appears that the complainant filed the present complaint due to confusion in her mind after seeing the Invoice (Exhibit C-6) and Sale Letter (Exhibit C-7), as sale price of the car vehicle in the Invoice is mentioned as Rs.3,21,217/-.

11.              In this way, there remains no doubt of any type that Ex-Showroom price of the car vehicle purchased was Rs.3,52,773/- and after deducting an amount of Rs.25,000/- being discount on account of Navratras Festival, the actual price of the vehicle can be calculated as Rs.3,27,773/-. Invoice (Exhibit C-6) has been issued regarding sale price of the car as Rs.3,21,217/-.  Much discussion is not needed regarding the amount spent for providing accessories because the amount spent for accessories is not to be included in the sale price of the car vehicle. It is always sweet will of the purchaser to purchase or not to purchase accessories items. Much discussion is not needed of the receipts placed on the file regarding purchase of accessories.

12.              Apart from it, out of the total amount received from the complainant, Invoice No.KKr-246 (Exhibit C-9) was issued on October 13^th, 2015 amounting to Rs.4,500/-  including tax in connection with Logistic charges and receipt No.3677 dated October 13^th, 2015 was issued by the opposite party No.2 in connection with extended warranty.  If the above mentioned amount of Rs.6,558/- is deducted from the remaining sale price amount of Rs.3,27,773/-, the remaining sale price amount can be calculated as Rs.3,21,215/-. Regarding the remaining amount also, there appears to be confusion on account of calculation.

13.              As per discussions above in detail, findings can be safely given that the opposite party No.2 did not charge extra amount more than the actual sale price of EON ERA (Hyundai) car vehicle purchased by the complainant on October 13^th, 2015.

14.              In view of the above, we find no illegality and invalidity in the impugned order dated September 07^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.  Hence, the findings of the District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

 

 

Announced: 04.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL