STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 21.11.2017
Date of final hearing: 25.08.2023
Date of pronouncement: 03.10.2023
First Appeal No.1473 of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Hans Raj S/o Sh. Phool Ram, R/o Village Behlolpur, Tehsil and District: Karnal. ....Appellant
Versus
- Aaryaman Automobiles, 117/6, K.M. Milestone, G.T. Road, Karnal through its proprietor.
- The Manager, HDFC Bank Opposite Mahabir Dal Hospital, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Mr. Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Hans Raj, appellant in person.
Sh. Ram Phal Narwal, counsel for respondent No.1.
Sh. Bhawan Deep Jindal, counsel for respondent No.2.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this appeal No.1473 of 2017 has been invited by unsuccessful complainant-Hans Raj, to the legality of order dated 16.10.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Karnal (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.222 of 2013, vide which his complaint has been dismissed.
2. Complainant alleges that: he, on 14.05.2012 booked Chevrolet Spark LS, Model 2011 with opposite party No.1. He deposited Rs.2,000/- cash for same (booking). OP No.1 told that price of vehicle was Rs.3,75,000/- plus Rs.5,000/- on account of colour and Rs.52,000/- would be deducted, being Model of year 2011. OP No. 1 handed over Invoice No. 501 dated 14.05.2012, to him. He paid Rs.95,000/- on 21.05.2012 and OP No.1 delivered car. He paid Rs.1,27,000/- to OP No.1 viz. Rs.2,000/- vide receipt No.187 dated 14.05.2012, Rs.95,000/- receipt No.0233 dated 21.05.2012, Rs.20,000/- vide receipt No.0457 dated 13.06.2012 and Rs.10,000/-, vide receipt No.0307 dated 29.06.2012. As per case so set up OP no. 2/Bank has financed this vehicle with amount of Rs.1,97,150/-. OP No.1 handed over invoice No. R00063 dated 21.05.2012 to complainant on 29.06.2012, in which actual price of Chevrolet Spark LS Model 2011 is Rs.3,10,567/- and Rs.52,000/- was deducted as discount as per this invoice, but OP No. 1 did not give discount of Rs.52,000/- on Spark LS Model of 2011 from its actual amount. It is pleaded that OP No.1 had received Rs.3,27,000/- - price of Chevrolet Spark LS 2011. It told that actual price of this car is Rs.3,80,000/-. In fact, actual amount of Chevrolet Spark LS model 2011 is Rs.3,10,567/-. After deducting the discount of Rs.52,000/- the actual amount of car was Rs.2,58,567/-. OP No. 1 made false representation that price of car is Rs.3,80,000/-. OP No. 1 with mala fide intention and in collusion with OP No. 2 had received Rs.68,433/, as excess amount which has not been refunded to him. Due to conduct of OPs No.1 and 2, he (complainant) had suffered mental pain, agony for which OPs are liable to compensate him with amount of Rs.5.00 lacs. On these pleas complaint has been filed for direction to OPs No. 1 and 2 to refund Rs.68,433/- with 24% interest; to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation for mental pain, agony and financial loss; to pay Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee.
3. Upon notice, OPs raised contest. In defence, taken by OP No. 1; in its preliminary objections; it is pleaded that: complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi and cause of action. He has suppressed true and material facts. It is pleaded on merits that car in question was at price of Rs.3,75,000/- plus Metalic colour charges Rs.5,000/-. Same was delivered to complainant after discount of Rs.55,050/-. Cost of car of was Rs.3,10,567/-, after discount of Rs.55,050/- and not the alleged amount i.e. Rs.2,58,567/-. Invoice was issued for amount of Rs.3,10,567/-. Deal between complainant and OP no. 1 was fair. There was no mala fide intention. Loan was arranged by complainant himself, who is non-genuine buyer; not paying bank installments.
4. In separate defence of OP No. 2/Bank, it is pleaded that: it has, on request of complainant advanced Rs.2.00 lacs for purchase of Spark LS model car having Engine No. 207KC2, Chassis No. 103537 and registration No. HR-05AG-3666 and for this; complainant entered into loan agreement with bank under loan account No. 21489362. Complainant undertook to pay advanced amount in strict disciplined manner by way of regular EMIs of Rs.4,630/- each, for 60 months. Complainant, in complete disrespect of loan, is not paying installments as per schedule. As per case of OP No. 2/Bank outstanding amount is due towards complainant and his account is running in default; he is willful defaulter. OP No. 2 has initiated arbitration proceedings against complainant. OP No. 2, in nowhere related to affairs between complainant and OP No. 1. It is denied that OP No. 1, with mala fide intention and in collusion with OP No. 2 has received Rs.65,583/- as excess amount from complainant.
5. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
6. On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Karnal vide order dated 16.10.2017 has dismissed the complaint thereby giving rise to filing of this appeal by complainant.
7. Complainant in person and learned counsel appearing for OPs/respondents have been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
8. Complainant/appellant has urged that there is unfair trade practice on behalf of OP No. 1. Actual price of Chevrolet Spark LS Model 2011 was Rs.3,10,567/- as per invoice dated 21.05.2012. By deducting amount of Rs.52,000/- towards discount; actual price of this car would be Rs.2,58,567/-. OP No. 1 has incorrectly revealed actual price of this vehicle as Rs.3,80,000/- and received Rs.68,433/- as excess amount. It is urged that deficiency in the services of OPs and their unfair trade practice is visible from retail invoice itself.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for OPs/respondents in one voice have urged that: amount of Rs. 3,10,567/- being the cost of vehicle (car in question), as per retail invoice Ex.C7/Ex.O-2 is arrived after extending discount of Rs.55,050/- to complainant. In fact, as per contention, actual price (Ex-showroom price) of this car was Rs.3,75,000/- plus Rs.5,000/- on account of metallic colour charges. It is urged that retail invoice reflects correct state of affairs, regarding price of vehicle. Complainant is not entitled to any further discount from Rs.3,10,567/- (price as per retail invoice Ex. C7/Ex.O2).
10. On subjectively and critically analyzing above rival submissions this Commission is of firm opinion that complainant has no case. Retail invoice Ex.C-7/Ex.O-2 dated 21.05.2012 is of the amount of Rs.3,10,567/- concerning price of Chevrolet Spark LS BS IV car. It was required on behalf of complainant to prove by leading positive evidence that from this amount (Rs.3,10,567/-); he was entitled to claim discount. He has not led any credible and tangible in that context. Ex.C-1 is retail order booking form. This document of OP No. 1 also contains signature of complainant and recites that ex-showroom price of this vehicle is Rs.3,75,000/-. It also reflects Rs.5,000/- towards colour and total amount being Rs.3,80,000/-. It also reflects Rs.52,000/- being the amount towards discount. This document obviously forms a formidable and acceptable base. It lends enough credibility and authenticity regarding price of Rs.3,10,567/- as specified in retail invoice Ex.C-7/Ex.O-2. The complainant cannot wriggle out from the legal import flowing from this document (Ex.C-1) as it also bears his signature. Legally, this document (Ex.C-1) has an effect of admission on the part of complainant to the effect that ex-showroom price of Car was Rs. 3,80,000/- including its colour charges. Ex.O-3 is yet another document which depicts calculation. As per this document; Rs.3,24,150/- has been received by OP No. 1. This was exactly the amount; the complainant was asked to pay. Meaning thereby, the evidence led by OPs, goes in long way, to prove that there was no unfair trade practice at their behest, towards complainant.
11. For the reasons recorded above, this Commission does not find any manifest error, legal or factual, in the final conclusion drawn by learned District Consumer Commission-Karnal. Impugned Order dated 16.10.2017 is the outcome of meticulous appreciation of facts and evidence by District Consumer Commission-Karnal. Complainant has rightly been non-suited. His complaint has been rightly dismissed. Impugned order dated 16.10.2017 is affirmed and maintained. Present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
12. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 03rd October, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
