Haryana

StateCommission

A/460/2017

JOY HONDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAYA RAM - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

29 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeals No: 460 & 1036 of 2017

Date of Institution: 18.04.2017 & 29.08.2017

Date of Decision: 29.08.2018

 

Appeal No.460 of 2017

1.      Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Proprietor/owner.

2.      Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Manager Sales Ajay Kumar.

3.      Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Sales Consultant Rohit Malhotra.

4.      Ajay Kumar Sales Manager, Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar.

5.      Rohit Malhotra, Sales Consultants, Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Daya Ram s/o Sh. Chet Ram, Resident of Kailash Nagar, Rewari Road, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

Appeal No.1036 of 2017

 

Daya Ram s/o Sh. Chet Ram, Resident of Kailash Nagar, Rewari Road, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Proprietor/owner.

2.      Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Manager Sales Ajay Kumar.

3.      Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Sales Consultant Rohit Malhotra.

4.      Ajay Kumar Sales Manager, Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar.

5.      Rohit Malhotra, Sales Consultants, Joy Honda, Ashwani Cars Private Limited, Plot No.2, O.P. Jindal Marg, near Jeet Dharmkanta, Delhi Road, Hisar.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for Daya Ram-Complainant.

Shri Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

                This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two First Appeals bearing Nos.460 of 2017 and 1036 of 2017 having arisen out of common order dated December 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short the ‘District Forum’), in complaint No.144 of 2015.     

2.                Dr. Himani daughter of complainant- Daya Ram (appellant herein) got married with Dr. Raman.  Prior to the date of marriage, Tikka Ceremony date was fixed as 13.02.2015.  The complainant desired to gift a Honda City SMT Petrol car of silver colour at the time of Tikka ceremony. The complainant got booked the above mentioned car vehicle on 31.01.2015 on payment of an amount of Rs.20,000/- in advance with the assurance that the above mentioned petrol car vehicle will be delivered to the complainant on 05.02.2015 on payment of the remaining sale price amount of Rs.8,57,326/-. Despite assurance on 05.02.2015 the opposite parties did not deliver car vehicle to the complainant when Vikas son of the complainant with Ms.Sunita Seokand, Advocate and few other friends visited the premises of the opposite parties. Assurance was given by the opposite party No.5 that delivery of the car vehicle will be possible on 07.02.2015. Again assurance was given for delivery of the car vehicle on 09.02.2015, 11.02.2015 and 13.02.2015 but delivery of the car vehicle could not be possible. The complainant could not talk to the opposite party No.1 during this period as he had gone to Thailand in those days.

3.                On that day, the opposite parties No.2 to 5 gave assurance to the complainant that in case the delivery of the petrol car will not be possible before the date fixed for Tikka Ceremony in that eventuality driver of the opposite parties shall make available a diesel engine car vehicle of the same brand at Bhiwani for the purpose of Tikka Ceremony and later on the diesel engine car will be replaced with a petrol engine car vehicle. The opposite parties gave this false assurance intentionally so that they may be able to sell a diesel engine car which was not of the liking of the complainant instead of petrol engine car. Diesel engine car was also costlier than the petrol engine car.   Due to this assurance, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.8,57,326/- on 15.02.2015 being remaining sale price of the petrol engine car. Thereafter, an extra amount of Rs.1,29,985/- was also deposited on 19.02.2015. The complainant had to face un-necessary harassment, mental agony and monetary losses due to faults of the opposite parties.

4.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund excess amount of Rs.1,29,985/- to the complainant which was received from the complainant; to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment, mental agony and financial losses; an amount of Rs.50,000/- spent by the complainant in connection with this transaction and an amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

5.                The opposite parties in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that it is not a case of deficiency in service. The opposite party No.1 is a dealer of Honda cars and sells the vehicles on behalf of the Company. It is admitted that on 31.01.2015 the complainant got booked a Honda City Petrol engine car but it was made clear to the complainant that the car vehicle was on waiting and the complainant shall be informed after availability of the vehicle. On 13.02.2015 the representative of the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1and requested to adjust the booking amount already paid for purchase of one Honda City diesel engine car in the name of Dr.Raman Yadav. In this way, Honda City diesel engine car was delivered to Raman Yadav after completion of necessary formalities and receiving an amount of Rs.8,57,326/-, the remaining sale price amount in cash. Apart from it, a cheque dated 20.02.2015 amounting to Rs.1,29,985/- was also received. The vehicle was delivered on the same date alongwith insurance policy and temporary registration number. The complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as claimed in the complaint. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with costs.

6.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

7.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated December 22^nd, 2016, the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay only an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment and mental agony etc.

8.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated December 22^nd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant-appellant has filed the present First Appeal No.1036 of 2017 with a prayer to modify the impugned order and to grant relief to the complainant as prayed in the complaint.

9.                The opposite parties also filed First Appeal No.460 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.   

10.              I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

11.              During the course of arguments, it was common case of both the parties that Dr.Himani, daughter of the complainant got married with Dr. Raman. Before performing marriage ceremony, the date was fixed for Tikka ceremony as 13.02.2015. It is also admitted fact that the complainant Daya Ram desired to gift a Honda City SMT petrol car of silver colour to his daughter at the time of Tikka Ceremony on 13.02.2015. It is also admitted fact that the complainant got booked the above mentioned car on 31.01.2015 on payment of booking amount of Rs.20,000/- with the assurance that delivery of the car vehicle will be made on 05.02.2015 on payment of the remaining sale price amount of Rs.8,77,326/-. Booking of the car and payment of Rs.20,000/- is evident from Welcome Docket Annexure C-1; Sale Contract dated 31.01.2015, Annexure C-2 and receipt regarding payment of the booking amount on the same date Annexure C-3.  It is evident from the document Annexure C-4 that price of the petrol engine Honda City car at that time was Rs.8,76,326 and that of diesel engine Honda City car of the same brand as Rs.10,06,311/-.  It is also admitted fact that despite assurance given by the opposite parties, delivery of the petrol engine Honda City car could not be possible on 05.02.2015, 11.02.2015 as well as on 13.02.2015.  Vikas son of the complainant and Ms. Sunita Seokand, Advocate visited the show room of the opposite party No.1 on the above mentioned dates. Delivery of the petrol engine vehicle could not be possible as the opposite party No.1 being dealer did not receive delivery of petrol engine Honda City car during that period.

12.              Version of the complainant is that the opposite parties used clever tactics so that the opposite parties may be able to sell a diesel engine Honda City car to the complainant instead of petrol engine car. The main reason behind it was that the price of the diesel engine car was Rs.1,29,985/- more than the price of the petrol engine car and as petrol engine car was not available with the opposite parties and they were willing to earn profit in their business by selling a diesel engine car to the complainant. It is also admitted fact that the petrol engine Honda City car was got booked for the purpose to gift that car by the complainant to her daughter and son-in-law at the time of Tikka Ceremony. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is clear that the car vehicle was booked for a specific purpose which was needed on a specific date to make the Tikka Ceremony function of the daughter of the complainant more graceful. Under these compelling circumstances, the complainant agreed to take delivery of a diesel engine Honda City car of the same brand and manufacturing year so that the vehicle may be gifted at the time of Tikka ceremony. It is admitted fact that a diesel engine Honda City car was delivered to the complainant on 13.02.2015. On that date apart from the remaining sale price amount of Rs.8,57,326/- as per booking contract, an amount of Rs.1,29,985/- was paid to the opposite parties through a cheque. An amount of Rs.1,29,985/- was paid because price of the diesel engine car was Rs.1,29,985/- more than the price of the petrol engine car.

13.              It is also admitted fact that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, the vehicle was got insured on the same date and was provided a temporary registration number also. Sale Certificate is Annexure C-5; Delivery Check List is Annexure C-6; Invoice dated 19.02.2015 is Annexure C-8 amounting to Rs.9,52,900/- including VAT.  Receipt dated 13.02.2015 regarding payment of an amount of Rs.8,57,326/- is Annexure C-9 and receipt dated 19.02.2015 regarding payment of an amount of Rs.1,29,085/- is Annexure C-10.  Insurance Policy is Annexure C-11. Temporary Registration Certificate and insurance policy of the diesel engine car vehicle were issued in the name of Dr. Raman Yadav son-in-law of the complainant. Total amount received from Dr. Raman Yadav is shown as Rs.10,07,311/- as mentioned in Annexure C-8.

14.              Facts and circumstances of this case are quite clear.  In the beginning a petrol engine Honda City car was booked for the purpose of gifting the same by the complainant to her daughter at the time of Tikka ceremony to be held on 13.02.2015. It appears that the delivery of the car vehicle could not be possible by the opposite parties on 05.02.2015 and thereafter also till 13.02.2015 due to non-availability of the vehicle as Honda City petrol engine car vehicle was not received from the manufacturer. It appears that although the complainant was willing to purchase a petrol engine Honda City car but under these compelling circumstances he had to agree to take delivery of diesel engine Honda City car to be gifted at the time of Tikka ceremony. Version of the complainant is that delivery of the diesel engine car was received only with the understanding that after Tikka ceremony the opposite parties will replace the diesel engine car with a petrol engine car.

15.              On the other side, version of the opposite parties is that keeping in mind the importance of Tikka ceremony function, the complainant agreed to purchase diesel engine car and made payment of the total sale price of diesel engine Honda City car. From the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it appears that at later stages the complainant agreed to purchase a diesel engine car but under compelling circumstances as the opposite parties could not provide a petrol engine car to the complainant before the time of Tikka ceremony function. The complainant not only made payment of the total sale price amount required for purchase of diesel engine car but also obtained temporary registration certificate as well as the insurance policy also. It appears that later on it became difficult for the opposite parties also to exchange/replace the diesel engine car with a petrol engine car because by that time the vehicle had already been purchased in the name of Dr. Raman Yadav which caused devaluation of the vehicle.

16.              Anyhow the complainant did not suffer any monetary loss due to this fresh transaction by purchasing a diesel engine car. In those days diesel engine car was more valuable, more particularly due to gap in rates of diesel oil and petrol oil. It appears that preference of the complainant was to purchase a petrol engine car so that he may be able to save extra payment of an amount of Rs.1,29,985/-.  Now diesel engine car is with the complainant or his son-in-law. The complainant has not prayed in his complaint to replace the diesel engine car with a petrol engine car. Only relief claimed by the complainant is to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,29,985/- as well as to pay compensation amount. It appears that later on the complainant and his son-in-law were not so much willing to replace the diesel engine car.

17.              As per discussions above in detail, faults are from both sides but initially problem arose due to fault of the opposite parties as they could not provide the vehicle within the prescribed period of time. The complainant had to purchase another vehicle which was not of his choice under the compelling circumstances. The complainant certainly had to spend an amount of Rs.1,29,985/- in excess more than his budget to provide a gift to his daughter. This fact also cannot be overlooked that the complainant had to face un-necessary harassment and mental agony. He had to visit office of the opposite parties and other authorities for redressal of his grievance. The complainant had filed complaints against the opposite parties addressed to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India; Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana; Director General of Police, Haryana and other authorities. Copies of those complaints are Annexure C-14 to C-21.

18.              Keeping in mind all these circumstances, I feel the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum awarding to the complainant only an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary harassment and mental agony etc. is justified. Resultantly, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated December 22^nd, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and both these appeals stand dismissed.

19.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing First Appeal No.460 of 2017 be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 29.08.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

CL