BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.139/16.
Date of instt.: 26.05.2016.
Date of Decision: 06.04.2017.
Dalel Singh S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop r/o Village Solu Majra, District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
Legend Honda, Opulent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 4th Mile Stone, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Director/Manager.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Anurag Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Gaurav Wadhwa, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a Honda AMAZE 1.5 SX MT (1-DTEC) car on 09.11.2015 bearing chassis No.MAKDF25HKFN102566 and Engine No.N15A13020048 for a sum of Rs.6,85,083/- from the Op. It is alleged that the Op also arranged bank loan to the complainant from HDFC Bank Ltd. Pehowa and also insured the aforesaid car of complainant through Royal Sundram General Insurance vide policy No.VHP/01242655 dt. 09.11.2015. It is further alleged that when the complainant after taking the delivery of his car demanded sale bill from the Op for getting his car registered with the Registration Authority, Kaithal, the Op delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that in the absence of original sale bill of the aforesaid car, the complainant could not apply for registration of his car in time. This way, the Op is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that on 10.11.2015, the complainant purchased one car Honda Amaze 1.5 SX MT on the price of Rs.7,83,439/- and on the same day, the complainant sold his old TATA Indigo car bearing registration No.HR08K-0100 to the OP and the price of that car was settled as Rs.75,000/- and this amount was got adjusted in the price of Honda Amaze. It is pertinent to mention here that the car TATA Indigo was under hypothecation agreement with Union Bank of India and it was settled that the complainant shall get clear all the loan on TATA Indigo within 7 days and shall deposit N.O.C. of Union Bank of India and balance payment of Honda Amaze but the complainant did not deposit the NOC within 7 days and due to this reason, the Op intimated the complainant that the agreement of old TATA Indigo has been cancelled; that the complainant did not deposit the whole amount with the Op and balance amount due against the complainant was Rs.97,379/- whose interest is still continue. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and Mark-CA to Mark-CD and closed evidence on 21.10.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-RA and Mark-RB and Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed evidence on 06.12.2016 and also tendered in additional evidence documents Ex.R9 and Ex.R10 and closed evidence on 06.03.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased the Honda AMAZE car in question for a sum of Rs.6,85,083/- from the Op on 09.11.2015. He further argued that the Op also arranged bank loan to the complainant from HDFC Bank Ltd. Pehowa and also insured the aforesaid car of complainant through Royal Sundram General Insurance vide policy No.VHP/01242655 dt. 09.11.2015. He further argued that when the complainant after taking the delivery of his car demanded sale bill from the Op for getting his car registered with the Registration Authority, Kaithal, the Op delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and in the absence of original sale bill of the aforesaid car, the complainant could not apply for registration of his car in time. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted an authority reported in 2013(3) CPC page 613 (NC) titled as Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. (M/s.) Vs. Sabu K (Mr.). On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op argued that the complainant purchased the car in question on the price of Rs.7,83,439/- which includes Rs.7,44,101/- showroom price; Rs.4,000/- logistic charges, handling charges; Rs.4690/- roadside assistance; Rs.7287/- as extended warranty and Rs.23,361/- insurance charges. He further argued that on the same day, the complainant sold his old TATA Indigo car bearing registration No.HR08K-0100 to the OP and the price of that car was settled as Rs.75,000/- and this amount was got adjusted in the price of Honda Amaze. He further argued that the car TATA Indigo was under hypothecation agreement with Union Bank of India and it was settled that the complainant shall get clear all the loan on TATA Indigo within 7 days and shall deposit N.O.C. of Union Bank of India and balance payment of Honda Amaze. He further argued that the complainant did not deposit the NOC within 7 days and due to this reason, the Op intimated the complainant that the agreement of old TATA Indigo has been cancelled and complainant was asked to pick-up his car, otherwise, according to rules of the company, Rs.250/- per day would be charged as parking charges. He further argued that on 17.11.2015, the complainant agreed to pay 1.5% interest on the amount of Rs.7,83,439/-. He further argued that on 03.12.2015, the complainant deposited Rs.5,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.7,89,314/- which includes Rs.5875/- as interest. He further argued that on 17.12.2015, the complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/-; Rs.80,000/- on 21.04.2016 & 22.04.2016 and Rs.32,000/- on 04.05.2016. He further argued that the complainant did not deposit the whole amount with the Op and balance amount due against the complainant was Rs.97,379/- whose interest is still continue.
6. The complainant has placed on file receipts Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 regarding the payment made by him to the Op. Rs.30,000/- were paid vide Ex.P1 dt. 22.04.2016; Rs.50,000/- vide Ex.P2 dt. 21.04.2016; Rs.32,000/- vide Ex.P3 dt. 04.05.2016; Rs.1,00,000/- vide Ex.P4 dt. 17.12.2015 and Rs.75,000/- vide Ex.P5 dt. 15.01.2016. According to the complainant, he purchased the car in question on 09.11.2015, whereas according to Op, the complainant purchased the car in question on 10.11.2015. From the above receipts, it is clear that the complainant has not made the complete payment at the time of purchase of car in question. From the evidence of complainant, it is clear that the complainant has made the last payment of Rs.32,000/- on 04.05.2016. As the total price of the car in question was not made by the complainant at the time of purchase of car, so, the Op is right in claiming the interest on the amount not paid at the time of purchase of car in question. It is admitted by the Op that the complainant has paid Rs.5,00,000/- on 03.12.2015 and besides this, the complainant has proved on the file that he has made the payment of Rs.2,87,000/- upto 04.05.2016. According to the Op, if the complainant paid the total price at the time of purchase of car in question, then he should have paid Rs.7,83,439/- but the complainant has not paid the same at the time of purchase the car in question, so, the complainant is liable to pay interest on the delayed period and a sum of Rs.97,379/- was pending towards the complainant at the time of filing the reply. The complainant alleged that as per insurance of the car in question issued on 09.11.2015, the IDV of the car in question was Rs.6,85,083/-, whereas now the Op is contending that the IDV of the car in question was Rs.7,44,101/-. In this regard, the Op has placed on the file in additional evidence a photo-stat copy of the cancelled insurance, Ex.R9 and the valid insurance of the car in question as Ex.R10. The complainant has also placed the copy of the insurance policy bearing No.VHP/01242655 dt. 09.11.2015 regarding the car in question. But from Ex.R9, it is clear that this insurance policy bearing No.VHP/01242655 dt. 09.11.2015 has been cancelled. It is clear from the policy, Ex.R10 that the car in question was re-insured vide policy No.VHP/01242689 dt. 10.11.2015 as the chassis number and engine number are the same in both the policies. Ld. Counsel for the Op contended that the IDV of a new vehicle is mentioned in the policy after depreciation of 5% from the actual price. This contention of ld. Counsel for the Op has force. The showroom price of the car in question as alleged by the Op is Rs.7,44,101/- and after deducting the 5% amount of Rs.37,205/- as depreciation, the IDV comes to Rs.7,06,896/-. Therefore, the IDV shown in Ex.R10 as Rs.7,06,895/- is found correct. The complainant has made the payment in instalments and this fact has not been mentioned in the complaint, which clearly indicates that the complainant has not come with clean hands in this Forum. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has not made the entire payment of the price of the car in question at the time of its delivery and we found no deficiency on the part of Op.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and we hereby dismiss the same. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.06.04.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
