O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1. The complainant sought refund of excess amount of Rs. 25,071/- together with interest, delivery of Hyundai Eon Dlite + 2014 model car, Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical strain and also costs of the complaint from the opposite party on account of deficiency of service on their part.
2 The case of the complainant in brief is that the 1st opposite party is authorized dealer of 2nd opposite party, manufacturers of Hyundai motors. He approached the 1st opposite party to purchase Hyundai Eon Dlite + 2014 model car and staff of 1st opposite party promised him to deliver the said car for on road price of Rs. 3,86,524/- and accordingly they issued quotation / proforma invoice after explaining about all the accessories that would be provided by 1st opposite party and directed the complainant to approach Shriram City Union Finance Limited for loan facility and he has to pay margin amount. Sri Ram City Union Finance Limited paid Rs. 2,75,000/-towards the loan and the complainant paid Rs. 1,11,524/- towards his money to the 1st opposite party by way of cash. Thus in total 1st opposite party received Rs.3,86,524/- but they issued delivery challan on 21.02.2014 without giving the actual invoice of the ex show room price. Then he suspected the staff of 1st opposite party and enquired with other dealers and learnt that they have to sell and collect uniform invoice rates of ex show room price. He also learnt that even 2014 model car of the same car was selling at the price of Rs. 3,70,000/- by other dealers at that time.
3 It is also case of the complainant he approached 1st opposite party and requested to furnished invoice. Then they issued invoice dated 15.03.2014 with ex show room price of Rs. 3,14,124/- instead of Rs. 3,86,524/- the actual amount received as per the quotation. If the insurance amount of Rs. 9,379/- and life tax of Rs. 37,950/- are added, even then the car will be priced at Rs. 3,61,453/- but not Rs. 3,86,524/- which was quoted by 1st opposite party by suppressing the material facts. Thus the opposite parties committed illegal acts for unlawful gain and thereby caused loss of Rs. 25,071/- to the complainant and it amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Further they also cheated him by delivering 2013 model car instead of 2014 model car. If the accessories worth of Rs. 5,000/-, handling charges of Rs. 4,950/- which are mentioned in the quotation are added, still 1st opposite party collected excess amount of Rs. 15,121/-.
4 It is also his case he issued a lawyer’s notice to opposite parties and though they received notices neither they replied nor complied with his demands. Thus he approached this Forum for recovering the above said amounts.
5 Resisting the claim of the complainant both the opposite parties filed their written versions. The 1st opposite party filed its written version denying the material allegations and further according to them purchase of car is financial commitment and as such it depends upon financial status and need of a customer. The complainant himself approached them deciding to purchase 2013 model car. After coming to show room, in view of variation prices and discounts for the models of 2013 and 2014 cars he chose to purchase 2013 model car only. They have given a quotation as per the requirements of accessories to the complainant. The complainant actually paid an amount of Rs. 3,77,024/-. This amount represents ex show room sum of Rs. 3,14,124/- after discount of Rs. 12,000/- + live tax of Rs. 37,950/- + handling charges of Rs. 4,950/- and accessories worth of Rs. 20,000/-, thus totaling to Rs. 3,77,024/-.
6 Further according to them the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,64,840/- by way of cheque through Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., and paid an advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- and also another amount of Rs. 1,02,184/- totaling to Rs. 3,77,024/-. They allowed discount of Rs. 12,000/- on the vehicle and the free insurance of Rs. 9,739/- totaling to Rs. 21,739/-. The complainant suppressed all these material facts and he paid only Rs. 3,77,024/- but not Rs. 3,86,524/- as claimed by him.
7 It is also their case in fact the complainant placed an order for accessories worth of Rs. 20,000/- and not Rs. 5,000/- as claimed by him. Even at the time of taking delivery of vehicle the complainant was very much satisfied and even thereafter he visited a show room take and at no point of time he expressed his grievance. The complainant himself chose 2013 model car in view of the high rate of 2014 model car. The complainant has to pay for the accessories worth of Rs. 20,000/-.
8 Further according to them the show room price is the same for the same model car and there will not be any variation from person to person. Further according to them there is no deficiency of service on their part and sought dismissal of the complaint.
9 In the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party they also denied the material allegations attributed against them and further according to them they have no role in retail sale of vehicle in question and also no amount towards sale consideration of car was ever paid to them by the complainant. They deal with all his dealers on a principal to principal basis and errors / omissions if any at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. Their liability is limited and extended to its warranty obligations alone. According to them the cars are purchased by the concerned dealers and as such the 1st opposite party after purchasing cars sell the same to the customers under sale invoice. The title of Hyundai vehicle passes on to the concerned dealer, the moment it is put on a common carrier. Thus they have no role in retail sale of cars and they can’t be held liable for deficiencies alleged by the complainant.
10 It is also the case of the 2nd opposite party on receipt of complaint they contacted 1st opposite party and as per available information from 1st opposite party extra price was charged by them and vehicle was delivered as per order form dated 07.01.2014.. As per 1st opposite party they received Rs. 3,77,024/- only from the complainant. The insurance for car was given free of cost as per promotional offer. Discount of Rs. 12,000/- was also given on ex show room price of Rs. 3,26,124/-. The complainant also got accessories on chargeable basis for Rs 20,000/-. Order booking form & deliver details card dated 07.01.2014 clearly mentioned the make of vehicle as 2013 and the complainant is aware of the same as order form bears his signature. Thus they sought dismissal of the complaint.
11 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts sought by him in the complaint?
3. To what relief?
12 Point No.1: To buttress his contention the complainant furnished his proof affidavit and exhibited Ex.A1 quotation given by 1st opposite party 07.01.2014, Ex.A2 invoice dated 15.03.2014, Ex.A3 challan dated 21.02.2014, Ex.A4 data sheet issued by Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. dated 02.04.2014, Ex.A5 online payment along with receipt dated 03.05.2014, Ex.A6 office copy of lawyer’s notice dated 09.04.2014 and Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 acknowledgments of opposite parties dated 11.04.2014 and 16.04.2014 respectively.
13 In support of his contention the complainant furnished affidavit of T. Nageswararao, Branch Manager of Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Kakinada as PW2.
14 As against this evidence Sales Manager, Allada Srinivasa Rao of 1st opposite party and Manish Kumar the Authorized Signatory of 2nd opposite party furnished their chief affidavits reiterating the stand taken in their written version. They exhibited B1 to B6 which are statement of account and delivery details card, counter sale invoice, temporary certificate of registration, application for registration of motor vehicle, sale certificate and price list.
15 Now for the above material it has to be culled out whether the complainant has made out any case for recovery of the amount from the opposite parties on the ground of deficiency of service on their part.
16 It is the specific contention of 1st opposite party that in fact the complainant paid Rs. 3,77,024/- only but not Rs. 3,86,524/- as claimed by him. In this regard that the complainant claimed he paid Rs. 3,86,524/-. Admittedly, he has not produced any receipt for the said amount passed by 1st opposite party evidencing his paying that amount to the 1st opposite party. Though he relied on Ex.A4 which is data sheet of Shriram City Union Finance Ltd wherein they have shown the loan amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- and margin money Rs. 1,11,524/-. No receipt was filed by the complainant showing that much payment showing an amount of Rs. 3,86,524/- to the 1st opposite party. On the other hand Ex.A1 would indicate that the complainant paid Rs. 3,77,024/- only. Here it may be pointed out that in the proof affidavit of complainant generally he denied the case of opposite parties. He did not choose to deny the correctness or geniuses of the exhibits marked on behalf of the opposite parties. If at all the complainant paid Rs. 3,86,524/- definitely would have obtained a receipt to that affect from the opposite party. Ex.B1 statement of account reflects the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,02,184/- by way of cash and the sum of Rs. 2,64,840/- was received by 1st opposite party by way of cheque drawn on ING Vysya Bankers. Thus the contention of the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs. 3,86,524/- is not supported by any legally acceptable evidence. Furthermore though in the quotation given to the complainant under Ex.A1 a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is shown as towards accessories, the same is disputed by opposite party who claims in fact they provided accessories worth of Rs. 20,000/- which was to be paid by the customers. The factum of their providing accessories worth of Rs. 20,000/- is also born by Ex.B1 statement of accounts.
17 The another contention of the complainant that instead of 2014 model car, the opposite party delivered model of 2013 is also without any material on the record. In fact the sale certificate under Ex.B5 and delivery details card marked under Ex.B1 would indicate that the complainant purchased Hyundai Eon Dlite 2013 model only. If really, he wanted to have 2014 model car he could have refused the delivery of the car model of the year 2013 and nothing prevented him refusing to take delivery of 2013 year model car. Thus in these circumstances the complainant failed to produce any legally acceptable evidence to conclude that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Thus this point is answered against the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties.
18. Point No.2: In view of the finding rendered under point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
19. In the result, in view of the findings rendered under point Nos.1 & 2, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 17th day of April, 2015.
Sd/-XXXX Sd/-XXXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:
PW1: Sri Manda Venkata Ratnam
PW2: Sri T. Nageswararao, Branch Manager, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Kakinada
For opposite parties:
DW1: Sri Allada Srinivasa Rao, Sales Manager
DW2: Sri Manish Kumar, Authorized Signatory, Hyundai Motor India Limited
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 07.01.2014 Quotation given by 1st opposite party
Ex.A2 15.03.2014 Invoice
Ex.A3 21.02.2014 Challan
Ex.A4 02.04.2014 Data sheet issued by Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
Ex.A5 03.05.2014 Online payment along with receipt
Ex.A6 09.04.2014 Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant to the
opposite parties
Ex.A7 11.04.2014 Acknowledgment of opposite party
Ex.A8 16.04.2014 Acknowledgment of opposite party
For opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Statement of account and delivery details card
Ex.B2 Counter sale invoice,
Ex.B3 Temporary certificate of registration
Ex.B4 Application for registration of motor vehicle
Ex.B5 Sale certificate
Ex.B6 Price list.
Sd/-XXXX Sd/-XXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
