District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.385/2020.
Date of Institution: 15.10.2020.
Date of Order: 21.11.2022.
Rakesh S/o Shri Duli Chand R/o Pawta, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Director, Bohra Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., 38, Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad.
2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (corporate Office), Plot NO.5, 2nd and 6th floor, Corporate one Baani Building, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 25.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Gaurav Jain, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. N.K.Singla, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Rohan Khanna, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant approached Axis Bank to finance the said vehicle and accordingly the Bank disbursed an amount of Rs.5,73,345/- in the account of opposite party No.1 in the month of February 2020 and against such loan installment of an amount of Rs.12,182/- had been tied and complainant had been paying such installment since March 2020 till date. Since 7 months had been passed but opposite party No.1 did not deliver the car to the complainant till now regarding which he had approached the office of opposite party No.1 personally many times but opposite party No.1 gave assurance every time for soon delivery but all in vain. Further opposite party No.1 made excuses of non delivery of said vehicle due to the reason of non delivery by opposite party No.2 resultantly the complaint become sufferer. The complainant was paying the installment of the vehicle which he did not posses because of the act and conduct of opposite parties, which could not be compensated in any manner, as the complainant and his family members were very much curious for having upcoming new vehicle in their family but all the dreams were broken. Further paying Rs.12,182/- monthly for such thing which the complainant did not posses converted him into a great stressful condition and passing through mental agony. Further the goodwill of the complainant was also on stake as if he stops to pay installment then his track record would be disturbed and CIBIL Score would become obsolete and no bank would sanctioned loan to the
complainant in furture. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay Rs.5,73,345/- with foreclosure amount of Rs.70,000/- plus the installment amount if Rs.12,182/- (calculated from March 2020 till disbursed all
the amount) plus Rs.25,000/- ( which was given by complaint in cash as booking amount)
b) pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. (including 50,000/- financial loss) , as compensation for negligency, harassment, mental agony, pain and suffering. pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as and when the answering opposite party received the notice form the Hon’ble Forum, the answering opposite party enquired the matter and received mail from the bank and also received some document son mail which were forged and fabricated documents. The alleged receipt-bank voucher, bill dated 03.02.202, insurance cover note. The alleged documents were forged one. However, it was submitted that the chasis no. mentioned in the alleged forged insurance cover note was actually purchased by some Saurabh Agarwal. The alleged forged bill which was produced by the complainant was having No. SAL-INV-1920-633 shown on 3.2.2020. Actually the correct bill No. SAL-INV-2021-633 was issued by the answering opposite party in the name of Vijay Singh on 1.2.2021. It was further submitted that in the forged bill the chasis number shown was actually sold by the answering opposite party to Saurabh Agarwal on 18.11.2019. the complainant had tried to grab the money and produced fake documents before the bank by forging false signature and stamp over the said fake documents. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant
and submitted that in the month of February, 2020 the complainant had booked a Hyundai Accent from the showroom of opposite party No.1 by paying a booking amount of Rs.25,000/- in cash against a total consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. The present complaint revolves around the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 in delivering said vehicle, which as per the claims in the complaint had not been delivered to date. It was submitted that the answering opposite party had been impleaded in the present complaint on the wrongful the wrongful assumption that opposite party No.1 was an agent of answering opposite party. It was evident that the complaint revolves solely around deficiencies on the part of opposite party No.1 and the answering opposite party had erroneously been made party to the present complaint non the wrongful assumption that the parties share a principle-agent-relationship. It was submitted that the liability of answering opposite party being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars was limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone and error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales of the car on the part of the dealer cannot be fastened upon the answering opposite party. It was submitted that the cars were purchased by the concerned dealers such as other opposite party NO.2 from answering opposite party against payment and thereafter, the purchased cars were sold by the dealer to the customers under sale invoice. It was submitted that the answering opposite party cannot be held liable or responsible for any, misrepresentation or commitment made by the dealer, in its own capacity, to the consumer as they were neither an agent nor employee of the answering opposite party. It was submitted that no cause of action had arisen against the answering opposite party. It was further
submitted that the answering opposite party can’t be held liable for any error or omission on the part of its dealer, It was submitted that even if the allegations of the complainant was taken as gospel truth. The complainant had failed to substantiate any role of the answering opposite party in the entire series of events that took place. The present was a case where the allegations revolve solely around the non- delivery of booked vehicle. It was pertinent to note that not even a single documents had been produced showing that any consideration paid for the vehicle had been paid to the answering opposite party. Opposite party No.2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– Bohra Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to: a) pay Rs.5,73,345/- with foreclosure amount of Rs.70,000/- plus the installment amount if Rs.12,182/- (calculated from March 2020 till disbursed all the amount) plus Rs.25,000/- ( which was given by complaint in cash as booking amount).b) pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. (including 50,000/- financial loss) , as compensation for negligency, harassment, mental agony, pain and suffering. pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence,
Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Rakesh, Ex.C-1 – statement of account,. Edx.C-2 – Disbursement advice cum delivery order, Ex.C-3 – Bank statement, Ex.C-4 – legal notice, Ex.C-5 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly
agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Rahul Madan, Authorized person/Manager of M/s. Bohra vehicle Pvt. Ltd.38, Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad .
As per evidence of opposite party No.2 Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Shri Hemant Makkar, working as Deputy Manager, Legal & Secretarial with Hyundai Motors India Limited having its office at 2nd & 6th floor, Corporate one (Baani Building, Plot NO.2, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi.
7. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to pay Rs.5,73,345/- with foreclosure amount of Rs.70,000/- plus the installment amount if Rs.12,182/- (calculated from March 2020 till disbursed all the amount) plus Rs.25,000/- ( which was given by complaint in cash as booking amount).b) pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. (including 50,000/- financial loss) , as compensation for negligency, harassment, mental agony, pain and suffering.
8. In this case, in the month of February 2020 the complainant gave Rs.25000/- in cash to opposite party No.1 and booked a Hyundai car from his agency against total consideration amount of R.7,00,000/-. As per loan sanction, disbursement statement and bank statement vide Ex.C-1, C2 & C3, the complainant approached Axis Bank to finance the said vehicle and accordingly the bank disbursed an amount of Rs.5,73,345/- in the account of opposite party No.1 in
the month of February 2020 and against such loan installment of an amount of Rs.12,182/- was tied and the complainant has been paying such installment since March 2020 till date but the opposite party No.1 did not deliver the car in question to the complainant.
9. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 is argued that some amount was transferred by the alleged Axis Bank in the account of the opposite party No.1 without any intimation or letter or demand. The said amount is still lying as suspense amount.
10. Opposite party No.2 argued that in the month of February, 2020 the complainant had booked a Hyundai Accent from the showroom of opposite party No.1 by paying a booking amount of Rs.25,000/- in cash against a total consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. The present complaint revolves around the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 in delivering said vehicle, which as per the claims in the complaint had not been delivered to date. Opposite party No.2 further argued that the liability of answering opposite party being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars was limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone and error/omission/misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales of the car on the part of the dealer cannot be fastened upon the answering opposite party.
11. During the course of arguments , counsel for the opposite party No.1 has filed an application alongwith letter dated 17.12.2020, emails, statement of account regarding the money transferred by the AXIS Bank to their account. Opposite party No 1 has already refunded their money with 50% interest to the bank. In this case, Bank was a necessary party .But the complainant has not
impleaded as a party to the AXIS Bank to the present case. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is disposed off with liberty to file the fresh complaint before the competent authority/Commission with relevant opposite parties like bank.i.e. Axis Bank. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 21.11.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
