West Bengal

Siliguri

43/S/2013

SRI RABESH KUMAR GUPTA, - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE PROPRIETOR, - Opp.Party(s)

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 43/S/2013.                DATED : 16.10.2015.                 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE &

  SRI PABITRA MAZUMDAR.

                                                             

COMPLAINANT                       : SRI RABESH KUMAR GUPTA,

                                                              S/O Parsu Ram Prasad Gupta,

                                                              Methibari, SIT College, Sukna,

                                                              Dist.- Darjeeling, Pin – 734 009.

                                                                

                                                       

         O.Ps.           1.      : THE PROPRIETOR,

  Lexican Motors,  

  Kusum Nagar, Matigara, Siliguri,

  P.O. & P.S.- Matigara, Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                                           

2.         : THE BRANCH MANAGER,

              Cholamandalam Investment & Finance  

                                                              Company Ltd.,

                                                              Spencer Plaza, 1^st Floor, Shop No.18,

                                                              Burdwan Road, Siliguri- 734 005.

 

 

                                                3.         : THE REGIONAL MANAGER,

  Tata Motors,

  5^th Floor, Apeejay House,

  15, Park Street, Kolkata- 16.

 

                                                4.         : THE MANAGER,

  Tata Motors Limited,

                                                              1^st Floor Bombay House,

  24 Homi Modi Street,

                                                              Hutatma Chowk, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Monojit Roy, Advocate.

 

 

Contd…….P/2

-:2:-

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

Mr. Biswanth De, Hon’ble President      

 

The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant came to OP No.1 for purchasing a vehicle being model Tata Indica Vista Aqua quadra also known as indica vista aura plus QJT hereinafter will be indicated as high model, manufactured by OP Nos.3 & 4 by taking loan from OP No.2.  Entire arrangement of purchase of vehicle and sanction of loan was done on 06.12.2012.  The Proforma invoice dated 06.12.2012 regarding high model of vehicle shows Rs.6,60,073/-.  OP No.2 sanctioned loan of that amount except down payment.  Exchange bonus of Rs.3,000/-, consumer bonus Rs.30,000/- was stated to be given.  OP No.1 delivered the vehicle after taking the sanctioned amount from OP No.2 in favour of the complainant.  OP No.1 delivered a low model being model Indica LS TDI BS-III hereinafter referred as low model.  The price of low model vehicle is Rs.4,78,840/-.  Complainant was told to refund the excess amount as per their promise to deliver high model, but OP no.1 did not refund the money.  Even registration of the low model vehicle was not done after delivery, registration was done after directions of this Forum.  The OP No.2 also informed over e-mail to OP Nos.3 & 4 that OP No.1 has given low model vehicle to the complainant and thereby instructed OP No.1 through OP Nos.3 & 4 to give exact model vehicle to the customer for which OP No.2 released order and as per payment made by the complainant.  The complainant also informed the matter to OP Nos.3 & 4, but no result that the complainant paid high price for high model vehicle, but OP No1 has given him low price model vehicle.  Hence, this complaint before this Forum for compensation as laid down in the prayer portion.

OP No.1 has contested the case by filing written version denying

 

Contd…….P/3

-:3:-

 

 

inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  The positive case of the OP No.1 is that complainant did not pay him Rs.1,73,253/-.  It is also case of the OP No1 that OP No.2 made payment of a sum of Rs.5,29,019/- and accordingly money receipt dated 18.12.2012 was issued by OP No.1.  But it is contended by OP No.1 that initially complainant proposed to purchase high vehicle model, later on he took low vehicle model with price Rs.4,78,440/- and complainant was interested in getting the difference amount paid to him.  This OP has given to the complainant Rs.20,000/- towards consumer discount.  But OP No.1 admits that after adjusting everything the complainant is supposed to refund this amount to OP No.2.  It is also case of the OP No.1 that the complainant was not interested in taking the registration of the vehicle after making payment towards miscellaneous expenses, registration certificate and tax token etc.  OP No.1 also submits that after getting order of this Forum, he had given the complainant five documents as laid down vide para no.22 of WV of OP No.1. 

OP No.2 has contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant and stated that the OP No.2 is a financer.  This OP No.2 cannot modify or change the agreement without instruction of the dealer i.e., OP No.1.  OP No.2 states that loan has been sanctioned in respect of the invoice dated 06.12.2012 of the dealer (OP No.1) in respect of the vehicle Tata Indica Vista Aqua Quadra hereinbefore referred as high model vehicle.  The loan agreement has been done in respect of that invoice dated 06.12.2012.  This OP No.2 after being instructed on 18.01.2013 requested OP Nos.3 & 4 to do needful to give the exact model vehicle to the customer for which the release order was given.  This OP No.2 further states he has not done any illegal act as the complainant had to pay the said amount as per loan agreement.  Virtually OP No.2 supports this allegation of

 

Contd…….P/4

-:4:-

 

 

complainant that in spite of high model vehicle, complainant has been paying EMI as per agreement i.e., for high model vehicle and this OP is a financer and is not related to the supplying of vehicle.

OP Nos.3 & 4 have contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant.  Their case is that low model vehicle has been supplied to the complainant by OP No.1.  Price of the high model is Rs.6,60,073/-.  If there is any disputes that dispute may be lying with the complainant and the OP No.1 and these OPs are not concerned in any way.  Accordingly, their case and claim is not tenable in law. 

To prove the case the complainant has filed the following documents and affidavit in chief :-

1.       Delivery note no.RICL/321/11-12 dated 06.12.2012.

2.       Proforma Invoice dated 06.12.2012 of Indica Vista Aura plus QJT.

3.       Money Receipt No.RICL/SIL/17/2012-13 dated 06.12.2013.

4.       Loan agreement XVFPSRI00000866945 dated 11.01.2013.

5.       Consumer-Exchange bonus for the month of December 2012 of Tata Motors of India Vista. 

6.       E-mail communications of letter dated 27.12.2012 to the OPs by the complainant on 27.12.2012, 28.12.2012 and 16.01.2013. 

7.       Letter dated 31.12.2012 to the OP No.2 by the complainant. 

8.       Letter dated 27.12.2012 sent to the OPs on 29.12.2012.

9.       DTDC courier being receipt no.62862144. 

10.     Letter dated 03.01.2013 to the OP No.2 by the complainant received by the OP No.2.

11.     Letter dated 09.01.2013 to the OP No.2 received by the OP No.2 on 09.01.2013.

12.     Letter dated 27.12.2012 to the OP No.2 received by the OP No.2 on 09.01.2013. 

 

Contd…….P/5

-:5:-

 

 

13.     E-mail communication dated 18.01.2013 by the OP No.2 to Premangshu Pandey under OP No.3 and 4.

14.     E-mail communication dated 12.02.2013 from Swati Bhadra, Customer Relationship Manager, Lexicon Motors, Malda to Premangshu Pandey under OP No.3 and 4 containing letter dated 12.02.2013 addressed to the complainant. 

15.     Letter dated 08.03.2013 by the complainant to the OPs.            

Complainant has filed annexure A which is invoice of Indica Vista LS TDI BS III low model. 

Annexure B quotation high model price Rs.6,60,073/-. 

Annexure-D letter of investment company showing sanction of loan, mode of payment etc. along with agreement signed and executed by the complainant and guarantor. 

Annexure-F is not legible.

Annexure-G series are letters of complainant to Lexicon Motors dated 27.12.2012 showing the grievances of granting loan amount and vehicle supplied to the complainant.  The complainant informed that he requested to get high model vehicle Indica Vista BS top model, OP No.1 supplied him lower model vehicle with low price.  As per request of OP No.1 complainant took that vehicle, but price had not been adjusted.  Hence, those letters requesting the Lexicon Motors to fulfill the loss of complainant. 

Annexure-I without signature letter, adjustment of loan amount, down payment and other amount.

Annexure-K letter of complainant to OP W No.2 for document. 

Annexure L, M are the same documents like previous one. 

Latter on the complainant has filed some document to show that he requested for adjustment.          

From the oral and document evidence it appears that complainant applied for a vehicle with the above price of rupees more than six lakhs.

 

Contd…….P/6

-:6:-

 

 

OP No.2 sanctioned loan and said sanctioned amount was paid to OP No.1, but OP No.1 did not pay the vehicle for which loan was sanctioned by the OP No.2 as per their statement and evidence.  There is no dispute on this point between the parties.  When OP No.1 did not make any fulfillment of latches by supplying low model vehicle, only then complainant has come before this Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

OP No.1 made argument that complainant did not pay him Rs.1,52,000/-  and complainant did not mention anywhere that amount.  He also argued that complainant has purchased low model vehicle, but this argument gets no support and sunk in the material on record and particular in the evidence of OP No.2 and OP Nos.3 & 4.  Accordingly, OP No.1’s advocate argued that there is no case of complainant who has purchased the low model vehicle on his own accord.  We are unable to accept this argument.  On the other hand it is argued for OP Nos.2, 3 & 4 that they are not connected in any way with the allegation of complainant.

After going through the document and evidence filed by the complainant and statement of OPs i.e., OP Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 it is well established that complainant got low model vehicle with higher amount of pay sanctioned by OP No.2.  The OP No.1 is also responsible for depriving the complainant for bonus as referred in the complaint and compelled him to pay higher amount of installment for clearing the dues in agreement.  Accordingly, after deliberation of the case of both sides, we are of the view that the complainant’s case succeeds against the OP No.1 and the case against OP Nos.2, 3 & 4 is dismissed. 

The complainant is also entitled to get order for such amount for his Redressal.

The complainant is entitled to get excess amount of money paid by him to the OP No.1.

[ 

Contd…….P/7

-:7:-

 

Complainant is also entitled to get bonus amount of Rs.30,000/-.

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment.

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence, it is

                    O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.43/S/2013 is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 and the case is dismissed on contest against the                     OP Nos.2, 3 & 4. 

The complainant is entitled to get excess amount of Rs.1,81,233/- from the OP No.1.

The complainant is also entitled to get bonus amount of Rs.30,000/- from the OP No.1.

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. 

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

The OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,81,233/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for excess amount within 45 days of this order.

The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for bonus amount within 45 days of this order.

The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the complainant towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment within 45 days of this order.

The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by issuing an

 

Contd…….P/8

-:8:-

 

 

account payee cheque in the name of the complainant for litigation cost within 45 days of this order.

In case of default of payment as ordered above, the complainant is at liberty to execute this order through this Forum as per law. 

Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

-Member-                    -Member-                        -President-