Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/349/2018

Aarti Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Berkeley Tata Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Yogesh Mittal Adv., Satyaveer Singh Adv. & Vinod Kumar Verma Adv.

04 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	349 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	20.06.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	04.02.2020

 

 

 

 

Aarti Rana d/o Late Sh.Delip Singh Rana, R/o House No.3552, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Berkeley Tata Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through Sh.Ranjeev Dahuja, Dealer of Berkeley Tata Motors.

2]  Sh.Ranjeev Dahuja, Dealer of Berkeley Tata Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area,  Phase-1, Chandigarh.

3]  Sh.Surjit, Senior Sales Consultant, Berkeley Tata Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

4]  Sh.Dinesh Rana, Sales Consultant, Berkeley Tata Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

5]  Tata Motors Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO No.364-365-366, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.  

   ….. Opposite Parties 

[2]

Consumer Complaint  No	:	350 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	20.06.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	04.02.2020

 

 

 

 

Mohit Kumar son of Sh.Satbir Singh, R/o House NO.3130/2, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

         …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Berkeley Tata Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh, through Sh.Ranjeev Dahuja, Dealer of Berkeley Tata Motors.

2]  Sh.Ranjeev Dahuja, Dealer of Berkeley Tata Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area,  Phase-1, Chandigarh.

3]  Sh.Surjit, Senior Sales Consultant, Berkeley Tata Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

4]  Sh.Dinesh Rana, Sales Consultant, Berkeley Tata Motors, Plot No.5, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

5]  Tata Motors Limited, through its Managing Director, SCO No.364-365-366, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. 

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                                        

 

Argued by :-

Complainants in person.

Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 2

OPs No.3 & 4 exparte. 

Sh.Shivam Grover, Adv. for OP No.5.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

          By this common order, we propose to dispose of the above mentioned two consumer complaints in which similar questions of law and facts are involved. 

2]       The facts are being taken from the present “Complaint Case No.349 of 2018 – Aarti Rana Vs. Berkeley Tata Motors & Ors.”.

 

3]       Succinctly put, the complainant visited OPs in order to purchase a vehicle where OPs No.3 & 4 on behalf of OP No.1 assured the complainant for providing free insurance of Rs.21,000/-, free extended warranty for two years, discount of Rs.15,000/- on purchase of Tata Tigor or Tata Tiago, having manufacturing of November/December, 2017.  It is averred that the OPs NO.3 & 4 also assured the complainant to provide finance facility for purchase of Tata Tiago (XZ) Car from Tata Finance @8.50% p.a. Accordingly, the complainant provided bank statement and other documents to OPs NO.3 & 4 and also made booking of the said car by depositing Rs.10,000/- in cash (Ann.C-1).  Thereafter, the complainant further deposited another amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- with OPs on 28.12.2017 & 31.12.2017 respectively in order to avail the benefit of December Offers (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  It is averred that the financer arranged by OPs namely Mahindra Finance Company was providing loan with interest rate @16% p.a. against 8.50% p.a. as agreed by OPs.  It is also averred that the complainant requested the OPs to refund the amount paid to them, but they did not do so.  Ultimately, the complainant had to arrange finance from ‘Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company’ at interest rate of 10.50% for the purchase of vehicle in question.  It is stated that the OPs delivered the vehicle to the complainant only on 12.1.2018, though the bill was prepared on 5.1.2018.  Alleged that OPs not allowed the complainant to inspect the vehicle    and later on the complainant found that the engine of the vehicle was so noisy and there were also some more problems in the vehicle. 

         It is submitted that when the complainant go through the documents of the vehicle, it was found that OP No.1 also charged Rs.6500/- as logistic charges/ handling charges from the complainant (Annexure C-4) and also charged for extended warranty of Rs.6003/-.  The Bill of extended warranty & Logistic charges/handling charges given by OP No.1 are Ann.C-5 & C-6.  It is further submitted that when the OPs were asked about providing insurance, they provide the insurance of the car in question of Rs.9681/- instead of agreed amount of Rs.21000/-  (Ann.C-7).  It is pleaded that the Ops have supplied a damaged and defective vehicle to the complainant which also is manufactured in October, 2017.   It is alleged that the OPs charged complainant Rs.6003/- extra as extended warranty and Rs.6500/- as logistic and handling charges which is illegal, also the OPs did not supply the insurance policy of Rs.21000/- rather provided it for Rs.9681/- only and the OPs failed to return the said amount to the complainant inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant to OPs.  It is pleaded that due to delay in registration certificate, the complainant could not ply the said vehicle on road and it remained idle at his residence for which complainant had to visit in Ola and Uber Cab facility costing her Rs.100-200 daily for about 2 months which way she suffered great financial loss and harassment. The complainant also sent legal notice to the OPs seeking refund of the cost of car so paid, as well as damages and other charges, but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

4]       The OP No.1 has filed reply (adopted by OP No.2 as well) stating that the complainant approached it for purchase of Tata Tiago XZ 1.2L Petrol White vehicle on 25.12.2017 and complainant showed interest in purchasing the said vehicle under December Discount Scheme under which the vehicles manufactured in the year 2017 were being offered to the customers on huge discounts/with huge benefits.  It is stated that the complainant was shown a Tata Tiago white colored vehicle which was manufactured in Oct., 2017 and which was being offered on a discounted price of Rs.4,48,085/-. The complainant was informed that with the said vehicle, the insurance worth Rs.19585/- shall be provided free of costs and that apart from the said price, the complainant will have to pay Rs.6500/- as logistic and handling charges and Rs.500/- as Temporary Registration/Number Plate Charges.  The complainant was also given option for purchasing the extended warranty for the said vehicle for Rs.6003/-.  It is submitted that the complainant agreed to purchase the said vehicle.  However, the complainant want to purchase the said vehicle on loan from some financial company and she has been informed that December Discount Scheme with free insurance would be available only upto 5.1.2018 and as such the loan has to be arranged by that date.  It is also submitted that the complainant after depositing Rs.40,000/- more assured to take the delivery of the booked vehicle by 30.12.2017, but she came on 31.12.2017 and told that the loan is being delayed and as soon as her loan will be cleared, she will take the delivery of the vehicle.  She also deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/-, completing the payment of booking amount as Rs.70,000/-.  It is pleaded that the scheme of December Discount with free insurance was available only till 5.1.2018, which was reminded to the complainant on 5.1.2018 that in case she took delivery of the vehicle after this date, she will not be entitle for free insurance scheme.  However, the complainant approached the answering OP only on 10.1.2018 and a new quotation in respect of changed model with discount was obtained by the complainant.  It is also pleaded that the complainant still succeeded in getting a further discount of Rs.15000/- which was on account of free extended warranty i.e. Rs.6003/- and Rs.9000/- as cash discount, the details of which were mentioned in price list signed by complainant.  The complainant finally approached on 12.1.2018 with delivery order from her finance company informing about sanctioning of loan of Rs.4,37,000/- in favour of complainant and disbursing of loan of Rs.4,23,848/- (after their deductions of Rs.13,157/-).  The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.8523/- as balance payment. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant along with temporary registration number. Original copy of insurance and the other documents were to be delivered and received by her when loan amount would be disbursed in the account of answering OP. In this regard, the undertaking dated 12.1.2018 of complainant and email dated 12.1.2018 is annexed as Ann./R-1/5 and R-1/6.  It is further pleaded that the loan amount so sanctioned in favour of the complainant was disbursed in the account of answering OP only on 18.1.2018 and accordingly the remaining original documents pertaining to the vehicle were delivered to the complainant.  It is asserted that the legal notice of the complainant was duly replied vide reply dated 16.5.2018.  It is also asserted that as far as the providing of insurance free of cost is concerned, the  answering OP had duly honoured the said commitment as the insurance policy worth Rs.21,000/- was issued to the complainant free of cost and it is not her concern whether the same costs the answering OP Rs.9681/- or lesser or more. It is asserted that as far as the charging of logistic charges are concerned, the same was charged after informing about the said charges in commitment form Ann.R-1/2 duly signed by complainant consenting the contents of said form and having prior knowledge of such charges.  It is also asserted that logistic charges covers expenses like stockyard services/warehousing charges, driving costs in terms of fuel consumed and people engaged, fuel given following delivery, transit risk, insurance from stockyard to dealers showrooms, polishing and/or waxing and towards other handling costs. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         OPs NO.3 & 4 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.10.2018.

         OP No.5/Tata Motors Limited has filed affidavit as evidence stating that the complainant has nowhere alleged deficiency in service on the part of answering OP nor has sought any relief from answering OP, as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed qua OP No.5. It is stated that the relationship between answering OP with OPs NO.1 to 4 is on principal to principal basis and it cannot be held liable for any independent act and/or omission, committed by other OPs No.1 to 4.  It is stated that the answering OP, after the sale of the vehicle to Dealer on receipt of consideration, is left with no control, whatsoever, in respect of the vehicle in question sold. It is submitted that the whole complaint is against and relates to OPs No.1 to 4. Pleading no deficiency in service, it is prayed that the complaint qua OP NO.5 be dismissed. 

 

5]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OPs.

 

6]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

7]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

8]       The detailed perusal of facts jotted down in both the complaint cases, are broadly identical with little variation and that too pertains to the amount paid by both the complainants in order to purchase the vehicles in question. 

 

9]       It is the allegations of both the complainants that they have not been given the assured discounts in actual, as well not supplied with original documents of the vehicles in time and also have been supplied with defective and damaged vehicles.  The complainants have also alleged that the OPs despite of the commitment failed to arrange loan/finance facility for them for purchase of the vehicles in question, which harassed them a lot.

 

10]      On contrary, the OPs No.1 & 2 (OP No.2 adopted reply of OP NO.1) vide their replies, filed separately in both the complaint cases, have come with plea that they rendered due services to the complainant besides accommodating them on each and every occasion whenever they approached while purchasing the vehicles in question or thereafter. 

 

11]      The thorough perusal of the reply of OPs No.1 & 2 in both complaint cases reveals the reply filed in both the complaint cases in question is broadly identical, which reveals that the complainants while filing the present complaint concealed certain facts.  It is only the reply of the OPs, which discloses the factual position. The record before us transpires that the complainants approached OPs for the purchase of vehicles in question on same day and deposited certain amounts towards booking.  It is only the allegation of the complainants, without any corroborative document on record, that it is only due to the assurances & offers given by the OPs that they booked the vehicles in question; that it is the OPs who failed to arrange the finance/loan facility for them, as alleged to have been agreed, for the purchase of the vehicles in question, as a result, there occurred delay in getting finance/loan from other financial company in order to purchase the vehicles in question. 

 

12]      The reply of OPs No.1 & 2 declines the averments and claims that the complainants set out in the complaints claiming that complainants themselves failed to get the loan facility timely.  The OPs No.1 & 2 also claimed that it is only after receiving the loan sanction email from the financer of the complainants company, they were accommodated by giving delivery of the vehicles that too after receiving very meagre amount.  The OPs No.1 & 2 also claimed that since they received the loan amount at a later stage, so they handed over the original sale documents to the complainants only after having received the amounts in their account.

 

13]      The OPs No.1 & 2 also claimed that in order to give benefit to the complainants under the December Offer Scheme, though the complainants were to make the complete payment against the vehicles so booked till 5.1.2018, but they failed to do so and made the payment in the second week of January, 2018, however, the bill dated 5.1.2018 has been issued to the complainants, accommodating them under the December Offer Scheme, while the delivery of the vehicles were given on 12.1.2018 after receiving only the loan sanctioning letters from the complainants. In the light of the duly sworn averments and from documents placed on record by OP No.1, the justification for issuing a back dated invoice, appeals to the senses and thus accepted as correct in the absence of any contrary plea. 

 

14]      The reply of OPs No.1 & 2 as well documents on record reveals that the complainants have been provided free insurance in respect of both the vehicles in question and the allegation of the complainants that they have not been provided insurance, for the committed amount, is altogether absurd and their prayer to make refund of the balance insurance amount, is also not sustainable, since no payment towards insurance, whatsoever the amount may be, has been paid by the complainants.

 

15]      As regard the allegations of the complainants about delivery of damaged and defective vehicles in question, the same are not supported by the complainants by leading authentic and cogent evidence on record to that effect, especially in the shape of an expert opinion.

 

16]      The complainants also did not place on record any documentary evidence to establish their allegations with  regard to alleged offers made by the representative of OPs to them at the time of booking of the vehicles in question and the same being a bald/verbal assertions cannot be believed and entertained. 

 

17]      From the entirety of facts & circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the complainants have miserably failed to prove their case by leading cogent & authentic documentary evidence in order to establish alleged deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Therefore, both the complaint cases are hereby dismissed being without merit.  No order as to costs. However, the complainants shall be at liberty to approach civil court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievances whereby they can lead elaborate evidence by examination & cross-examination of witnesses etc., as the proceedings before the Forum are summary in nature.

 

18]      A copy of this order be placed in connected Complaint No.350 of 2018 – Mohit Kumar Vs. Berkeley Tata Motors & Ors.

 

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

4^th February, 2020                           

                                                                             Sd/-             (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

         

 

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER