Haryana

StateCommission

A/110/2016

MODERN AUTOMOBILES - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    110 of 2016

Date of Institution:    04.02.2016

Date of Decision :     19.12.2016

 

Modern Automobiles authorised dealer of Maruti Care and Commercial Vehicles, SCO No.411, Sector-8, Panchkula through its authorised signatory.

Plot No.318, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula. 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Kishan, Resident of House No.1185, Sector 28, Panchkula.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Head Officer Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi through its authorised signatory.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri Aftab Singh, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ravi Kant, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Manoj Vasishth, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Salil Sabhlok, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          Modern Automobiles-Opposite Party No.1 is in appeal against the order dated December 30^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.143 of 2015.

2.                Vijay Kumar-complainant (respondent No.1) booked a car (Maruti K-10) with Modern Automobiles-Opposite Party No.1 (appellant herein) vide invoice dated 16^th March, 2015 (Annexure C-1).  The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties vide advertisement (Annexure C-5) had assured that rebate of Rs.27,100/- would be given on purchase of Maruti K-10 car but same was not given to him. It was alleged that as per bill (Annexure C-1) Ex-Showroom Price of the car was Rs.3,55,141.50; the complainant paid Rs.3,01,000/- and Rs.55,000/- was adjusted against the exchange of old car. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the parties of the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3.                The opposite parties contested complaint raising plea that discount of Rs.27,100/- was given to the complainant. It was stated that as per advertisement, there was saving up to Rs.27,100/- plus gold coin of 2 Grams on the purchase of Maruti K-10 car, which was given to the complainant. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“(i)     To pay an amount of Rs.27,100/- discount and gold coin of 2 gms as disclosed at the time of purchase of vehicle.

(ii)      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

(iii)     To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.”

5.                Counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

6.                Indisputably, Ex-Showroom Price of the car was Rs.3,55,141/- besides Logistic charges of Rs.3500/-. Thus, the total price of the car was Rs.3,58,641/-. The complainant was given discount of Rs.25,000/-. Rs.4756/- was payable towards extended warranty and Rs.200/- for temporary registration charges. After adding Rs.4756/- and Rs.200/- and deducting Rs.25,000/-, the price worked out to Rs.3,38,597/-.  Amount of Rs.3,01,000/- was received from the complainant besides the value of old car was Rs.45,000/-. After adjusting that, the amount refundable to the complainant came to Rs.7403/-, for which cheque bearing No.004702 dated 2^nd June, 2015 (Annexure R-9) was issued in favour of the complainant; however, the complainant refused to accept the same. The complainant has been separately paid Rs.5,000/- towards cost of 2 grams gold coin.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record, the Opposite Parties have been able to prove that there was no deficiency in service nor there was any unfair trade practice. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

8.                In view of the above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, it is directed that the opposite parties (appellant) shall send fresh cheque of Rs.7403/- within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, which the learned counsel for the appellant also agreed.  

9.                The statutory amount of Rs.21,050/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 19.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL