BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case No. : 226 of 2017.
Date of Institution : 07.09.2017.
Date of Decision : 30.04.2019.
Parveen Kumar aged 27 years son of Shri Suresh Kumar, resident of Gaushal Mohalla, Khaja Kheram Sirsa Tehsil & District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1.Vipin Motors Pvt.Ltd.Hisar Road, Sirsa, through its Manager/authorized person/proprietor.
2.Vipin Motors Pvt. Ltd. 4th KM Stone, Sirsa Road, Hisar District Sirsa, through its authorized person/Manager.
3.Tata Motors Ltd. 20th Floor, Tower 2-A, One Indiabulls Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai 400013, through its authorized signatory.
……Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
BEFORE: SH.R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH.ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh.J.B.L Garg, Adv. for complainant.
Sh.Sanjay Sihag, Advocate proxy for Sh.H.S.Raghav,
Advocate for Ops No.1 & 2.
OP No.3 exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs with the averments that the complainant purchased TATA ACE vehicle from Op No.1 on 31.10.2015 vide Tax invoice No.Vipin-M-1516-00389 for a sum of Rs.4,23,857/-. However, Op No.1 had quoted the price of the vehicle as Rs.4,17,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.1,25,000/- in cash and also got financed of Rs.3,30,000/- from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited. The Op No.1 had charged Rs.38,000/- in excess, which he had assured to refund the same. The vehicle was allotted registration No.HR57-A/5207. After few days of purchase of vehicle, the complainant came to know that the vehicle was earlier sold to one Vijay Kumar for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- on 27.08.2015 and the same was having some defects qua lights, unusual sound in engine and low average and even the same was accidental vehicle. The insurance of the vehicle was earlier in the name of said Vijay Kumar and the Ops have got the same transferred in the name of complainant. The complainant lodged complaint regarding this to the OP No.1, though it got checked the vehicle through mechanic, who made some minor repair for getting the vehicle in order but to avail and even the Op No.1 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complaint of the complainant. The vehicle was repaired on 29.06.2017 and Op No.1 had charged Rs.2300/- but the vehicle is lying in defective condition in the premises of complainant. The Ops have not refunded the excess amount of Rs.38,000/-. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
2. On notice, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared and filed their joint reply, whereby they have submitted that the complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands because registered owner of the above said vehicle is real brother of Parveen Kumar and on 31.10.2015 Vijay Kumar had approached the replying Ops to purchase the vehicle in question and in this way, the replying Ops had sold the vehicle on receiving of sound security and on the request of Vijay Kumar, agent of the finance company was called but the documents supplied by said Vijay Kumar were not completing the Cibil Score, therefore, finance company was unable to finance the vehicle. Thereafter, there was only option to obtain the finance on the vehicle in question transferred in the name of Parveen Kuamr. On the request of Vijay Kumar, answering Ops had cancelled the invoice in the name of Vijay Kumar and issued new invoice in the name of Parveen Kumar. The complainant has no concern with the matter in dispute and the present complaint is not maintainable. It has been further submitted that extra service benefits were given to Vijay Kumar till date without any expenses. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Notice was sent to Op No.3 through registered post but the same did not return even after lapsing of stipulated period of 30 days, therefore, Op No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.01.2019.
4. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.
5. We have learned counsel for the complainant and learned proxy counsel for Ops No.1 & 2 and gone through the material available on the case file.
6. The perusal of the file reveals that the complainant in order to prove his allegations has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1A, wherein he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the compliant and also placed on record details of installments on rough paper Ex.C1, delivery challan Ex.C2, temporary registration number slip Ex.C3, insurance certificate in the name of brother of complainant Ex.C4, insurance certificate in the name of complainant Ex.C5, repayment schedule Ex.C6, tax invoice Ex.C7, registration certificate Ex.C8, certificate of fitness Ex.C9, intimation regarding expiring the warranty of the vehicle Ex.C10, invoice for repair of vehicle Ex.C11, postal receipt Ex.C12 and legal notice Ex.C13 whereas on the other hand, the Ops No.1 & 2 have furnished affidavit of Yudhister Bansal GPA, Ex.R1, wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the reply and also tendered documents such as Tax invoice Ex.R2, cancelled invoice issued in the name of Vijay Kumar Ex.R3, tax invoices in the name of complainant Ex.R4 to Ex.R13, delivery challan Ex.R14, tax invoice in the name of brother of the complainant Ex.R15 and Ex.R16.
7. The complainant, in his complaint, has levelled allegations that he has purchased a TATA ACE from Op No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in cash and the remaining amount of Rs.3,30,000/- was got financed from Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited. The price of the vehicle was quoted as Rs.4,17,000/- and the excess amount of Rs.38,000/- was to be refunded in cash. The said vehicle was sold and supplied by the Op No.1 on 31.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.4,23,857/-.
8. Further, there are allegations of the complainant that after few days of the purchase of the said vehicle, the vehicle was earlier sold to Vijay Kumar for a sum of Rs.4,25,000/- on 27.08.2015 and it was an accidental vehicle and the complainant noticed unusual sound from the engine of the vehicle and its light used to remain in On condition and the vehicle was giving only 13 KMPH. He also got the vehicle repaired on 29.06.2017 and the Op No.1 had charged Rs.23,00/-.
9. On the other hand, there is specific plea of the Op No.1 that earlier the brother of the complainant namely Vijay Kumar had approached for the purchase of vehicle and said vehicle was given to him, but as and when the financer was approached by Op No.1 in order to get the vehicle of Vijay Kumar financed, the financer explained that in the record of Cibil the record of Vijay Kumar is negative and said vehicle cannot be financed then said Vijay Kumar produced the paper of present complainant and got cancelled the sale invoice in the name of his brother, present complainant, after getting the previous sale invoice cancelled and the complainant is not entitled for the refund of Rs.38,000/-.
10. It is undisputed fact that the present complainant and said Vijay Kumar are real brothers. The complainant has placed on record the document Ex.C2, delivery challan, which is in the name of said Vijay Kumar, Ex.C2, copy of temporary registration of the vehicle in the name of Vijay Kumar Ex.C3, copy of insurance policy in the name of brother of complainant Ex.C4 and copy of insurance policy in the name of complainant Ex.C5. So, it appears from the evidence of the complainant himself that the earlier the vehicle was sold to said Vijay Kumar and thereafter, it was purchased in the name of his brother Parveen Kumar and the sale invoice was changed by Op No.1. The complainant has not led any evidence from which it could be presumed that vehicle in question was accidental and this plea is devoid of merit.
11. Second plea of the complainant is qua refunding of Rs.38,000/-, which was charged in excess by Ops. As per allegation of the complainant he has paid Rs.1,25,000/- in cash and Rs.3,30,000/- was got financed from Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Limited and in total Rs.4,55,000/- were charged whereas the sale invoice was issued for Rs.4,23,857/-. The fact of advancement of loan finds corroboration from the statement of account Ex.R6. Sale invoice reflects the amount of sale as Rs.4,23,857/-. The Op Nos.1 & 2 have not specifically denied this fact that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was not received by the OP No.1 from the complainant. So, in this way, the complainant appears to be entitled for the refund of the amount which was charged in excess by the Op No.1 and non-refunding of the amount clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops No.1 & 2.
12. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to overhaul the account of payment of complainant, which was made by him and to make payment to the complainant, which is found excess in sale invoice and temporary registration charges, in his presence after serving 7 days prior notice, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. In case, the orders are not complied within the stipulated period, in that eventuality, the amount which the complainant will have to receive after overhauling the account, will carry interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.04.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
