Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/94

Mandeep Chanana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lally Motors India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh Sethi

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

Complaint No. :       94

Date of Institution:   11.04.2016

Date of Decision :    17.04.2017

 

Mandeep Chanana s/o Sh Parkash Chanana r/o Mata Arayian Wali STReet, Mohalla, Janian, Faridkot.                                           

                                                            .......Complainant

Versus

1. Lally Motors India (P) Ltd. G T Road Jugiana, Ludhiana through authorized person/MD.
2. Volkswagen India Pvt Ltd El, MIDC, Industrial Areas (Phase-III) Village Nigoje Mhalunge Khabarwadi Taluka Khed Chakan Pune 410501.
3. Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt Ltd having its office at Silver Utopia, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400099.                                                                                           

........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Mandeep Chanana, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh S S Heer, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

                   Sh Anand Mahajan, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                   Sh Avtar Krishan, Ld Counsel for OP-3.

 

ORDER 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.6,900/-illegally charged as logistic charges by Ops and to make payment of Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus on old car and Rs.10,000/- as discount and for further directing OPs to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and financial loss to complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in December, 2013 on persuasion of employee of OP-1 in an exhibition organized by them at Faridkot, complainant got booked  a  car by paying Rs.50,000/-. It is further submitted that in April, 2014, when his booking was due, as per policy of Company, employee of OP-1 visited him and took his old car and assured to give handsome proper value adjustment of his old car for Rs.1,30,000/-and also assured to give exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- alongwith discount of Rs.30,000/- besides logistic charges if charged would be returned to complainant. Complainant purchased the car from polo car from OP-1 on 11.04.2014 for Rs.6,83,408/- and OP-1 further charged Rs.6,900/-as logistic charges vide separate bill and gave receipt by deducting Rs.20,000/-as discount amount and Rs.1,30,000/-as value of old car and also assured to get back the exchanged bonus and discount amount in the form of demand draft. From detail given by Financer, complainant came to know that Ops did not pay Rs.10,000/-as exchange bonus. They have also not paid Discount amount and logistic charges, whereas, Op-1 claimed the same from OP-2. Moreover, delivery of bills is also delayed by Ops. It is contended that till date, Ops have not made the payment of exchange bonus, discount amount and logistic charges, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused harassment to complainant for which he is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.  

3                                      The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.04.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                           On receipt of notice, OP-1 appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking legal objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. It is averred that complaint in hand is not maintainable in present form and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as all transactions regarding purchase of car took place at Ludhiana and delivery of car is also taken by complainant from OP-1 from Ludhiana. Copy of the bill dt 11.04.2014, gate pass no. 104 and copy of sales contract dt 8.04.2014 justify that all transactions occurred at Ludhiana. Moreover, complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and has levelled false allegations against answering Ops. It is submitted that present complaint involves complex questions involving voluminous evidence, which is not possible in summary procedure. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that neither any exhibition was ever organized by them at Faridkot nor the employees of OP-1 persuaded complainant to purchase the car, rather complainant himself paid Rs.50,000/-and got booked the car through them in the month of December, 2013. Sale contract was concluded in Ludhiana on 8.04.2014 and amount of Rs.40,000/-has already been given and mentioned on bill no.18 dated 11.04.2014 and there was no agreement regarding refund of logistic charges. It is denied that employee of OP-1 assured complainant for giving the proper handsome value of old car by adjusting the old car for Rs.1,30,000/-. It is also denied that answering OP assured for exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-and discount of Rs.30,000/-. Allegations regarding agreement in respect of refund of logistic charges is also false and denied. It is further averred that OP-1 has paid the committed discount of Rs.40,000/-to complainant, which is clearly mentioned on bill dt 11.04.2014. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

5                                     OP-2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against them as it does not have any dealers nor it sells the cars manufactured by them to dealers or customers. Present car was never sold by Op-2 to complainant or dealer. It is asserted that Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt Ltd appoints authorized dealers for sale of cars to customers directly and asserted that main grievance of complainant is against Op-1 and moreover, they have no privity of contract with complainant and they are neither the necessary party nor are concerned with car in question in any manner. However, on merits, OP-2 has denied all the allegations of complainant being false, frivolous and incorrect asserting that no assurance in respect of refund of logistic charges through demand draft was ever given by them to complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                      OP-3 appeared through counsel and filed reply wherein took preliminary objections asserting that OP-3 Company deals in marketing, sale and servicing of Volkswagen group vehicles on principle to principle basis through its dealers across India and being a Sales Company, it provides its customers a warranty for certain period on vehicle sold through their dealer on certain terms and conditions and cars sold by answering OP to dealers passes through stringent quality and safety test as per high quality requirements and safety standards set by answering OP and only thereafter, cars are delivered to authorized dealers appointed by them. It is averred that it is within the purview and discretion of vehicle selling dealer to waive off certain legitimate charges as applicable, which otherwise, dealer is entitled to charge to customer at the time of sale of vehicle and it is the exclusive domain of vehicle selling dealer and answering OP is not liable for any assurances regarding giving of exchange bonus, discount or refund of logistic charges. It is further averred that they have no concern with complainant and they are not the party to the sales contract that occurred between complainant and Op-1. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as contract regarding sale of vehicle occurred at Ludhiana and moreover, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as no cause of action arises against answering OP. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

7                             Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-14 and then, closed the same on behalf of complainant.

8                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Pardeep Goyal as Ex OP-1/1 and document Ex OP-1/2 to 7 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1. Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ramedra Sharma as Ex OP-2/1 and document Ex OP-2/2 and closed the same on behalf of OP-2. Counsel for OP-3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Umesh V Khadpe as Ex OP-3/1 and closed the same on behalf of OP-3.

9                                       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.      

10                                      Ld Counsel for complainant has argued that in December, 2013 on persuasion of employee of OP-1 in an exhibition organized by them at Faridkot, complainant got booked  a  car by paying Rs.50,000/-. It is further submitted that in April, 2014, when his booking was due to mature, as per policy of Company, employee of OP-1 took his old car and assured to give handsome proper value adjustment of his old car for Rs.1,30,000/-and also assured to give exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- alongwith discount of Rs.30,000/- besides logistic charges if charged would be returned to complainant. Complainant purchased the car from polo car from OP-1 on 11.04.2014 for Rs.6,83,408/- and OP-1 further charged Rs.6,900/-as logistic charges vide separate bill and gave receipt by deducting Rs.20,000/-as discount amount and Rs.1,30,000/-as value of old car and also assured to get back the exchanged bonus and discount amount in the form of demand draft. From detail given by Financer, complainant came to know that Ops did not pay Rs.10,000/-as exchange bonus. They have also not paid Discount amount and logistic charges, whereas, Op-1 claimed the same from OP-2. Moreover, delivery of bills is also delayed by Ops. It is contended that till date, Ops have not made the payment of exchange bonus, discount amount and logistic charges, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint and has stressed to consider the documents Ex C-1 to 14.

11                                    Ld Counsel for OP-1 argued that all the allegations levelled by complainant on OPs are wrong and incorrect and averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. It is averred that complaint is not maintainable in present form and this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the same as all transactions regarding purchase of car took place at Ludhiana and delivery of car is also taken by complainant from OP-1 at Ludhiana. Bill dt 11.04.2014, gate pass no. 104 and copy of sales contract dt 8.04.2014 justify that all transactions occurred at Ludhiana. Moreover, complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and has levelled false allegations against answering Ops. Complaint involves complex questions requiring voluminous evidence, which is not possible in summary procedure. OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and specified that neither any exhibition was ever organized by them at Faridkot nor the employees of OP-1 ever persuaded complainant to purchase the car, rather complainant himself paid Rs.50,000/-and got booked the car through them in the month of December, 2013. Sale contract was concluded in Ludhiana on 8.04.2014 and amount of Rs.40,000/-has already been given as mentioned on bill no.18 dated 11.04.2014 and there was no agreement regarding refund of logistic charges. It is specifically denied that employee of OP-1 assured complainant for giving the proper handsome value of old car by adjusting the old car for Rs.1,30,000/-. It is also denied that answering OP assured for exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-and discount of Rs.30,000/-. Allegations regarding agreement in respect of refund of logistic charges is also false and denied. It is further averred that OP-1 has paid the committed discount of Rs.40,000/-to complainant, which is clearly mentioned on bill dt 11.04.2014. All the other allegations are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

12                                    Ld Counsel for OP-2 argued before the Forum that complaint is not maintainable against them as it does not have any dealers nor it sells the cars manufactured by them to dealers or customers. Present car was never sold by Op-2 to complainant or dealer. It is asserted that Volkswagen Group Sales India Pvt Ltd appoints authorized dealers for sale of cars to customers directly. Grievance of complainant is against Op-1 and moreover, they have no privity of contract with complainant and they are neither the necessary party nor are concerned with complainant or car in question in any manner. OP-2 has denied all the allegations being false asserting that no assurance in respect of refund of logistic charges through demand draft was ever given by them to complainant and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

13                                             Ld Counsel for OP-3 argued that OP-3 Company deals in marketing, sale and servicing of Volkswagen group vehicles on principle to principle basis through its dealers across India and being a Sales Company, it provides its customers a warranty for certain period on vehicle sold through their dealer on certain terms and conditions and cars sold by answering OP to dealers passes through stringent quality and safety test as per high quality requirements and safety standards set by answering OP and only thereafter, cars are delivered to authorized dealers appointed by them. It is averred that it is within the purview and discretion of vehicle selling dealer to waive off certain legitimate charges as applicable, which otherwise, dealer is entitled to charge to customer at the time of sale of vehicle and it is the exclusive domain of vehicle selling dealer and answering OP is not liable for any assurances regarding giving of exchange bonus, discount or refund of logistic charges. It is further averred that they have no concern with complainant and they are not the party to the sales contract that occurred between complainant and Op-1. It is further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as contract regarding sale of vehicle occurred at Ludhiana and moreover, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as no cause of action arises against answering OP. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

14                                     From thorough and careful perusal of affidavits, evidence  and documents placed on record and from the above discussion, it is observed that main grievance of complainant is that Ops did not fulfil their promise in respect of exchange bonus, discount and refund of logistic charges, they made with complainant through their dealer at the time of booking and selling of their product. Now, all the three Ops are putting off the liability of making refund of logistic charges or regarding exchange bonus and discount price on one another, which is a clear cut deficiency in service on their part. Ex C-9 copy of invoice dated 1.04.2014 clearly reveals the point that OP-1 charged logistic charges from complainant, but as per complainant from the detail called by him from Financer, it is clear that Op-1 has taken logistic charges from Company and have not refunded the same to complainant. OP-1 have not come up to the assurances made by them. There is deficiency on the part of OP-1 in not making refund of logistic charges, paying discount amount and exchange bonus to complainant as per assurances given them. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and stands dismissed against OP-2 and 3 as there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP-1 is directed to make payment of amount of Rs.6,900/- as refund on account of illegally charging the logistic charges from complainant and to make payment of Rs.10,000/- as exchange bonus on old car and Rs.10,000/- as discount alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till its final realization. OP-1 is further directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,000/- to complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment  suffered by him besides Rs.2,000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month   from  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  copy   of  the   order,  failing  which  complainant shall be entitled to initiate  proceedings  under   section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of this order be supplied complainant as well as Opposite parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 17.04.2017       

 Member                  President                      (P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)