Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Judicial Member.
1. Appellant Eros Motors Pvt.Ltd. has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 09/03/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, in Consumer Complaint No.RBT/CC/12/714, by which the Consumer Complaint filed by the present respondent/complainant came to be allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.3,450/-, 15,000/-, 26,889/- and 2,250/- alongwith compensation and litigation cost. (The appellant and respondent shall be referred by their original nomenclature).
2) Short facts leading to the present appeal may be narrated as under. :-
3) Complainant Jeevan Kawduji Zade claims to be resident of Nagpur. Complainant has alleged that on 22/04/2011 the representative of the O.P. namely Eros Motors Pvt.Ltd. came to his residence in the night and persuaded him to book I-10 Car of Hyundai Company on the ground that the prices of the cars of Hyundai Company were increasing fast. Further complainant has alleged that representatives of the O.P. has also persuaded him to hand over cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- towards booking amount. On the basis of assurances given by the agent and representative Prashant Barbatkar, Dhoble and teem leader Gagan Yadao, the complainant handed over cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of booking amount. Complainant has further alleged that the team of representatives of the O.P. also promised to give a discount by way of exchange bonus. Complainant thereafter paid an amount of Rs.4,838/-. At the time of booking O.P. had also promised and assured to provide accessories of good quality worth Rs.1950/- including steering cover and accessories. Complainant was also promised that delivery of the vehicle shall take place on 05/05/2011 on the auspicious day of Akshay Tritiya and so the complainant went to show room of the company, but there was huge delay in delivery of the car and the car was delivered in the evening without the necessary accessories as promised. Complainant has further alleged that the representative of the company subsequently explained that they will also not be in position to give exchange bonus in case the complainant does not sign the customers satisfaction note. Complainant thereafter sent several letters to the company asking for the amount towards exchange bonus, but the same was never paid. Complainant has also alleged that the company had extracted an amount of Rs.4,64,838/- from him despite the fact that the price of the I-10 car as per the special price scheme was Rs.4,37,949/-. Complainant has contended that the company had recovered extra amount of Rs.26,889/- and so complainant was entitled for refund of Rs.26,889/-. Complainant has further contended that an amount of Rs.33,055/- was recovered towards registration of vehicle whereas actual charges were 30,805/- and therefore an amount of Rs.2,250/- was recovered in addition towards agent service charges in wrongful manner. Complainant made correspondence with the O.P. namely Eros Motors Pvt.Ltd., but there was no response. Complainant thus came to conclusion that the O.P. had indulged in deficiency in service which amounted to Unfair Trade Practice and so complainant preferred the present complaint against the O.P. seeking refund of amount taken from him.
4) O.P. has appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version on record. O.P. has categorically denied the allegations levelled by the complainant except that complainant Jivan Zade had purchased I-10 car from the O.P. company. O.P. has denied that its representatives had made a false representation to the complainant that the prices of the car were to escalate. O.P. has also denied to have promised to provide seat cover, body cover, steering cover of good quality etc. O.P. has categorically denied that the complainant had qualified for the amount of exchange bonus. O.P. has contended that the offer of exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/- was applicable only against submission of papers relating to sale of old car registered in the name of purchaser. Complainant never submitted the documents or papers and so the said exchange bonus offer was not payable to him. O.P. has also contended that the complainant had booked car on 22/04/2011 and so was not entitled for any discount as per the Scheme floated by O.P. According to O.P. the said scheme was not applicable on 22/04/2011. O.P. has also categorically denied that customer copy of the form Dt.22/04/2011 was provided and thereafter any over writing was made in the same. O.P. has also denied that complainant was entitled for an amount of Rs.2,250/- towards Agent Service Charges. For the forgoing reasons O.P. has contended that the complaint filed by the complainant was false and frivolous and deserve to be dismissed with cost.
5) Learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur thereafter went through the evidence affidavit and documents filed by both the parties. learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur also went through the written notes of arguments. After appreciating the documents and evidence adduced on record and written notes of arguments the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur came to the conclusion that the team leader and other representatives of the O.P. had given false assurance to the complainant to pay exchange bonus at the time of sale of car. The learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur also came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled for an amount of Rs.26,889/- towards difference in price of car and also for price of accessories and registration charges. The learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur therefore passed detailed order giving specific direction as per judgment and order Dt.09/03/2017. Against this impugned order Dt.09/03/2017 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, the present appellant has come up in appeal.
6) We have heard Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Saoji learned advocate for respondent No. 2 at length and respondent No.1 Jeevan Zade in person. We will deal with their contentions raised in appeal one by one.
7) There is no dispute that the complainant/respondent had purchased one car I-10 Megna 1.2 variant of Hyundai Company and had opted for silver color and the ex-showroom price was fixed at Rs.4,30,783/-. Complainant had also filled Customer Order Form on 22/04/2011. Prior to that complainant had already paid booking amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
8) At the out set Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur had failed to appreciate that the discount of exchange bonus worth of Rs.15,000/- was available to the complainant only after production of relevant papers. Complainant had failed to handover any papers or documents of sale of earlier car and so the complainant was not entitled to get the advantage of exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/-, but this fact was not appreciated properly by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. In this regard Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate has also drawn our attention to the copy of Customer Order Form Dt.22/04/2011. Customer Order Form gives the details of the entire transaction. Our attention was invited to the column relating to scheme. If we go through the said column the same mentions ‘Rs.15,000/- against papers’. On the basis of this endorsement it was submitted by Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate that the exchange bonus is to be given subject to complainant handing over relevant papers, but no such papers were handed over regarding sale of earlier car. Respondent/complainant who has appeared in person has strongly opposed this contention and had denied that the exchange bonus was promised after submission of papers. Respondent has taken specific plea that he was not the owner of any car and so there was no question of submission of papers, but infact the representative or service agent had given an assurance to complainant regarding payment and exchange bonus of Rs.15,000/-. If we go through written statement O.P. has denied this contention. But since the complainant has specially stated the names of representatives namely team leader Gagan Yadao and Prashant Barbatkar who gave this assurance, it was easily open to the O.P. to place on record their affidavits regarding any assurance given to the complainant. It is significant to note that the appellant/O.P. has also not placed on record any policy documents of exchange bonus to support their stand in the written submissions or to rebut the case of complainant. As such the contention of appellant on this aspect that no papers were submitted can not be accepted.
9) Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate for the appellant has also submitted that the appellant was not liable to pay the difference in price amounting to Rs.26,889/- as claimed by the complainant, since the car was booked by the complainant on 22/04/2011. Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the benefit of special limited period scheme was available to customers only for the period from 01/11/2011 to 25/11/2011. Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate has also drawn our attention to the copy of Special Price Scheme and we have gone through the same. No doubt this document shows that the special price as per scheme was applicable from 01/11/2011 to 25/11/2011. Respondent has strongly rebutted this submission and has argued that this stand was solely with a view to misguide the customer and extract more amount from them when infact the actual price of I-10 car was Rs.4,37,949/-. On this aspect also the respondent has contended that false representation was made by the team leader and representative of the company regarding special benefits and respondent was induced to purchase the car. In such circumstances the appellant/company was under an obligation to place the necessary material and documents as well as affidavits of the representatives which could have thrown light on the situation, but no such documents or affidavits have been placed on record which could show actual price prevailing on the relevant time.
10) Thirdly, Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate for the appellant has contended that the appellant was not liable also to pay Agent Service Charges of Rs.2,250/- for registration. However respondent has strongly rebutted this contention and has submitted that the appellant had already charged an amount of Rs.33,055/- for which no bifurcation was given though demanded by respondent. Respondend has taken plea that the dealers of the cars were in the habit of extracting Agent Service Charges under the head of R.T.O. Charges from the customer. In this regard respondent has also drawn our attention to the copy of circular Dt.07/10/2017 issued by Deputy Transport Commissioner. Respondent has contended that it was not open to the company to demand Agent Service Charges after having collected the amount of Rs.33,055/- towards Registration Road Tax. We have gone through the documents placed on record by respondent and also various judgments placed on record and we find considerable force in this contention of respondent that consumer was not liable to pay the sum. We have also gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. The learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has also observed that the appellant/O.P. had not given any satisfactory explanation as to how it was demanding an amount of Rs.2,250/- towards agent service charges. The learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has also given a finding that the appellant/O.P. had also not honored the assurance given to the complainant regarding supply of good quality accessories. After having gone through the papers placed on record, we do not find any reason to disturb these findings given by the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, since respondent was induced to purchase the car.
11) In the light of the aforesaid discussions, we find ourselves unable to accept the contentions advanced by Shri Jayesh Vora, learned advocate for appellant that the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has committed any error in giving findings or that the documents and paper placed on record were not appreciated in a proper perspective. On the other hand we find that the learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has gone through all the aspects. Therefore we do not find any substance in the appeal and so we pass the following order.
// ORDER//
- Appeal is hereby dismissed.
- Appellant and respondent shall bear their own cost.
iii) Copy of this order be supplied to both parties free of cost.
