| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
C.C.No. 541 of 31-10-2012 Decided on 15-05-2013
Nazar Singh aged about 55 years, S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, R/o Opp. Police Colony, Raman Road, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.
........Complainant Versus Director, Marketing Office of Chevrolet, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director. M/s. Padam Motors, 8th Mile Stone, Gill Patti, Goniana Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member For the Complainant : Sh. Thomas Bhangan, counsel for the complainant. For the opposite parties : Sh.Chander Mohan, counsel for opposite party No. 1. Sh. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite party No. 2. O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 02-02-11 he booked a Chevrolet Cruze Car, Model LTZ, manufactured by opposite party No. 1, with opposite party No. 2 which is the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 gave the date of delivery as 20-2-2011, as per booking receipt. At the time of booking of the car i.e. on 2-2-2011, the office Manager of opposite party No. 2 offered some free accessories i.e. mat, mudflap, talli couting, body cover and rain guard etc. and some free accessories i.e. mat, mudflap and body cover were given to the complainant at the time of delivery of the car, but without any bill and it was told to him that the remaining accessories i.e. Illumation door and still plate shall be given within short time, but till date the opposite parties have failed to deliver the same to the complainant. The complainant alleged that at the time of booking of the car, its price was Rs. 13,55,999/- but at the time of delivery of the car, its price increased and the opposite parties charged the price more than that which was told at the time of booking. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties had assured him to give the delivery of the car upto 20-02-2011, but they failed to do so and delivered him the car on 7-3-2011 intentionally knowing fully well that the prices of the automobile companies was going to rise. At the time of delivery of the car, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 13,77,679/- being its price i.e. Rs. 17,680/- in excess than the price disclosed at the time of booking. The manager of opposite party No. 2 told that he cannot charge the lesser price than the price fixed by opposite party No. 1, but however, he can give the free accessory i.e. Illumation door still plate to the complainant, but till date, no such accessory was given to him. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties delivered the car to him after the delivery date stated by the manager of the showroom after the rise of price with malafide intention due to which he has also been forced to pay 2% extra registration charges which were increased by the government of Punjab on 28-02-2011. In this way, the complainant has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 28,000/- approx. The complainant further alleged that he visited the showroom of the opposite parties time and again and requested them to provide him the remaining accessory alongwith bill or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 17,680/- charged in excess being the difference of price of the car, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the total amount of Rs. 45,680/- and pay him compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that in the said complaint, the sole case is regarding some free gifts/accessories which were not given to the complainant by opposite party No. 2. There is contract/agreement on the basis of principle to principle between opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 is responsible only to the conditions of warranty, which are described in warranty booklet. The opposite party No. 1 has further pleaded that it is misunderstanding on the part of the complainant as the delivery date which is given at the time of booking is tentative one, it is used to be mentioned on the booking order itself, as the delivery of the vehicle in question depends upon many things i.e. Manufacturing, transportation and earlier bookings. It was agreed and understood by the complainant himself that the delivery date was tentative one. The opposite party No. 1 has denied that it is the manufacturer as the vehicle in question is used to be manufactured by General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., and opposite party No. 1 is its sister concern. The opposite party No. 1 is used to sell the vehicles to the retailers in the lot of 20-25 cars. The opposite party No. 1 is bound by only the warranty clause of the vehicle not by the sale transactions done by retailers. The opposite party No. 1 has no concern with the retailers price as it deals throughout India where separate retailers have different prices. The price of the opposite party No. 1 is used to be calculated as per the cost of manufacturing and other misc. expenses whereas the price of the retailer is used to be calculated according to the cost of the vehicle stated by opposite party No. 1 + the cost of transportion + the pofit of the retailers. Therefore, by calculating this, the cost of the vehicle in question was coming to Rs. 13,77,679/-. In the present case, the retailer had given discount of Rs. 8,000/- out of his profits, thus there is no question of charging the higher amount. The opposite party No. 1 has further pleaded it has never promised to give the vehicle in question to the complainant on any specific date. The opposite party No. 1 has never charged any amount in excess, as well as, the amount of Rs. 28,000/- was paid to the state registration authority not to opposite party No. 1. If the complainant wanted to save himself from the excess charges of registration, then he would have purchased the vehicle in the year 2011. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded in its written statement that opposite party No. 2 is the dealer of opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 after the booking of the vehicle had placed the order to opposite party No. 1 and it had delivered the vehicle as and when received from opposite party No. 1. The complainant had sought the delivery of the vehicle without any protest at that point of time. Moreover, the date of delivery given at the time of booking is merely the tentative date and the complainant cannot seek any benefit of the same. The car has to be delivered at the price prevailing at the time of delivery of the vehicle and the complainant has voluntarily paid the said amount . The opposite party No. 2 has further pleaded that the car was booked by the complainant and the tentative date of delivery of the vehicle was given but the same was never a final date and is subject to number of circumstances. The booking form in original with the complainant contains the terms and condtiions including the conditions that there shall be no lialbility of the opposite party in case of delay in delivery of the vehicle. The opposite party No. 2 has admitted that few accessories had been given to the complainant free of cost but the same was merely as a good will gesture but there was no obligation of the opposite party to providie the said accessories and the scope is confined only to delivery of the car in question. The opposite party No. 2 has further admitted that at the time of booking of the car its price was Rs. 13,55,999/-, but there was an increase in price of the car in question by opposite party No. 1 and accordingly, the complainant had paid the increased price of Rs. 13,69,679/- after a discount of Rs. 8,000/- given by it to the complainant. The complainant had voluntarily received the car in question on 7-3-2011 without any protest. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that on 02-02-11 he booked a Chevrolet Cruze Car, Model LTZ, with opposite party No. 2 vide Ex. C-2 and the date of delivery of the car has been given as 20-02-2011, but the opposite parties did not deliver him the car on the said date and intentionally delayed its delivery with malafide intention as the price of the said car was going to increase. At the time of booking, the price of the car was Rs. 13,55,999/- whereas the opposite parties charged Rs. 13,77,679/- at the time of its delivery. The submission of the complainant is that he suffered financial loss in two ways firstly he paid excess amount to the opposite party No. 2 at the time of taking delivery of the car and secondly he paid 2% charges extra being the registration fee as on the date of delivery of the car, the registration charges were also increased by the Punjab Government. The complainant further submitted that the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 conveyed to him that he cannot charge the lesser price than the fixed one but he can give the free accessory illumation door still plate to him, but the same is still pending towards opposite party No. 2. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the date 20-02-2011 mentioned on the Retail Sales Order Booking Form Ex. C-1 is the tentative delivery date and not the fixed date. Further more, few accessories had been given to the complainant free of cost but the same was merely as a good will gesture and there was no obligation of the opposite party to providie the said accessories and the scope is confined only to the delivery of the car in question. Ex. C-1 is the Retail Sales Order Booking Form vide which the car in question has been booked by the complainant. A perusal of this document reveals that the car in question has been booked on 2-2-2011 and it has been specifically mentioned in it “ Tentative delivery date – 20-02-2011”. In such circumstances, the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties have delayed the delivery of the car with malafide intention to get benefit of price hike, is not tenable as the date given/mentioned by the opposite party No. 2 is tentative and not fixed. There is no evidence on file to prove that any specific date of delivery of the car in question was given by the opposite parties to the complainant. Hence, when no specific date of delivery of the car was given, in such circumstances, the contention of the complainant that he suffered financial loss on account of 2% extra registration fee is without any basis and is not tenable. The complainant has admitted in para No. 3 of his complaint that some free accessories were given by opposite party No. 2 to him. However, he has alleged that the manager of opposite party No. 2 has conveyed him to give free accessory i.e. illumation door still plate, but he has failed to prove this version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence that any such committment was made by the opposite parties. It is not the allegation of the complainant that the opposite parties have charged any extra amount than that prevailing market rate of the car in question on the date of its delivery. In view of what has been discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove his version by producing cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned. Pronounced 15-05-2013 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
