Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/473/2014

Vikram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Modern Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Mattoo

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/473/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	14/07/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	09/09/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Vikram Singh son of Late Sh. Varinder Singh, resident of House No. 2514, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.          Modern Automobile, 4 MW, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Managing Director.

 

2.       ICICI Bank, SCO 9-10-11, Sector 9, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

3.          Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi – 110070, through its Chairman.

 

4.       Smt. Usha Dhania, Customer Care Manager, Modern Automobile, 4 MW, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:          SH. P.L. AHUJA                                             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                           MEMBER

                    SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OPs No.1 & 4	:	Sh. Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

 

                    In brief, the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Suzuki Alto 800 from Opposite Party No.1 on 29.03.2013 vide invoice Annexure C-1, according to which the sale of the vehicle was Rs.2,78,363/-. The said amount was inclusive of VAT and discount offered by OPs No.1 & 3. The Complainant paid Rs.60,556/- and the balance to be paid by the Complainant was Rs.2,17,807/- for which he obtained a loan from ICICI Bank. It has been averred that the insurance of the vehicle and also the file charges for loan were separately paid by the Complainant. Even though the Opposite Party No.2 never supplied the loan sanction letter to the Complainant, yet he continued to pay the loan installment in time. It has been alleged that on 23.05.2014, the Complainant learnt from the loan account statement (Annexure C-3) that the total loan given to him by the Opposite Party No.2 was Rs.2,30,000/- due to which he was charged Rs.12,193/- in excess and was thus paying higher EMI to the Bank. Accordingly, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.4 in the office of Opposite Party No.1, but did not get any positive response. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the actual cost of the car was Rs.3,07,723/- excluding insurance and after giving discount of Rs.29,360/-, the balance amount to be paid excluding insurance was Rs.2,78,363/-. The Complainant had paid cash payment of Rs.60,556/- and the remaining amount was received through transfer from the Bank by Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.2,28,475/- (Annexure R-1/5 and R-1/6). The insurance charges were paid by the answering Opposite Parties (Annexure R-1/4). It has been pleaded that the Complainant has tried to club the loan processing fee charged by the Bank for which the answering Opposite Parties have no concern.  It has been further stated that the present complaint is not maintainable as earlier filed complaint No.349 of 2013 titled as Vikram Singh Vs. Modern Automobiles & anr. on the same issue involved in the present case. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, answering Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.          Opposite Party No.2 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Complainant was well aware of the amount that was released by the Bank to the Dealer i.e. Rs.2,28,475/-. The answering Opposite Party was only responsible for releasing the amount in terms of the agreement of finance entered into by and between the parties and was not concerned with the other dealings which may have taken place between the Complainant and the Dealer. It has been further pleaded that in case the Complainant had paid excess amount to the Dealer, he had the option to seek refund of the same from the dealer. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.          Opposite Party No.3 sent its written version through registered post on 19.08.2014, pleading that the Complainant has neither paid any amount to it (Opposite Party No.3) towards the price of the vehicle in question nor the answering Opposite Party sold/delivered the vehicle to him. The entire sale transaction had taken place between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1, to which the answering Opposite Party was not privy. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  However, subsequently Opposite Party No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on 14.10.2014.

 

6.          The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have been controverted.

 

7.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

8.          We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 4 and 2 (Opposite Party No.3 being ex-parte) and have perused the record along with the written arguments filed by the Complainant and on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. 

 

9.          The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a Maruti Suzuki Alto 800 from Opposite Party No.1 on 29.03.2013 vide invoice Annexure C-1. It has been pleaded by the complainant that he paid loan charges and file charges separately in cash to Opposite Party No.1. The main grouse of the complainant is that from the loan amount statement of account Annexure C-3 only he came to know that he was charged Rs.12,193/- in excess and was thus paid higher EMI to Opposite Party No.2..  The complainant even contacted Opposite Party No.4  but did not get any positive response. It has been pleaded that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties is not only deficiency in rendering service but also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

10.The stand taken by Opposite Parties No.1 &4 is that the present complaint does not lie as the complainant already made settlement vide Annexure R-1/2 (colly) and R-1/3 as full and final settlement. It has been further alleged that Opposite Party No.1 received Rs.2,28,475, from the bank and the total amount was received (Rs.2,28,475(through bank)+60,556/(in cash) was Rs.2,89,031/- .  It has been further stated by Opposite Parties No.1&4  that an amount of Rs.9808/- was paid by the answering Opposite Parties as insurance fee, which is clear from bank statement at page 20. In para 3 of their reply Opposite Parties No.1&4 specifically have admitted that in the entire calculation there is a difference of Rs.860/-only. This calculation dispute is also actually not there as already an amount of Rs.5000/- was paid vide Annexure R1/3 to the complainant by them as per compromise during the previous complaint. 

11.The stand taken by Opposite Party No.2 is that complainant was well aware of the amount of Rs.2,28,475/-, which was released by the bank to the dealer. An agreement was entered into between the complainant and the dealer only and in case if the complainant  had paid excess amount to the dealer he can seek refund of the same from it.

12.The plea of  Opposite Party No.3 is that the complainant never paid any amount towards the price of the vehicle to it as  the money transaction had taken place between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 to which it was no privy.

13.so far as the question of maintainability of the present complaint due to the previous complaint filed by the complainant is concerned, it is stated here that the present complaint has been filed on the fresh issue of overcharging during the sale of the vehicle in question. We feel as in the earlier complaint there was no dispute regarding the overcharging of price of the vehicle, therefore, the dispute in the present complaint can be adjudicated by this Forum.

14.The next question, which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant paid an amount of Rs.9808/- in cash towards the price of the vehicle separately. Mere oral assertion not supported by documentary evidence cannot be believed. There is no cogent and convincing document placed on record by the complainant to prove his  version. Hence, in the absence of the same the this plea of the complainant stands rejected. On the other hand Opposite Parties No.1&4 have produced on record Annexure R1/4 wherein Rs.9808/- has been mentioned as insurance charges in the name of the complainant alongwith the bank statement at page 20 with clear cut mention of the same. Hence, we are of the view that there is no dispute regarding the payment of Rs.9808/- towards insurance of the vehicle.

15.Undoubtedly this is an admitted fact that there is discrepancy of Rs.860, which is evident from Annexure R1/5, R1/6. As per Annexure R1/5 the balance to be paid was Rs.2,17,807/- and as per Annexure R1/6 the amount credited in the account of the Opposite Party No.1 was Rs.2,28,475/- meaning thereby Rs.10668/ was credited in excess in the account of Opposite Party No.1. But as per Annexure R1/4 and bank statement at page 20 Rs.9808/- was paid by Opposite Party No.1 towards insurance charges through cheque. Now if the amount of Rs.9808/- which is apparent from the  record on file, was paid by Opposite Party No.1 towards insurance of the vehicle is deducted from the excess amount i.e. Rs.10668/- credited in the account of Opposite Party No.1 the difference comes to Rs.860/-, which is the main issue involved in the present case being overcharged.  Therefore, we deem it proper to conclude that the act of Opposite Parties No.1&4 to charge Rs.860 extra during purchase of the said vehicle amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

16.After overall observation we do not find any deficiency in rendering service on the part of Opposite Parties No.2&3 being the bank and the manufacturer of the vehicle, in question respectively. Therefore, the complaint stands dismissed qua Opposite Parties No.2&3.

17.          In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the concerted view that Opposite Parties No. 1&4 are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1&4, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1&4 are jointly and severally directed to:-

 

 

[a] Refund Rs.860/- being over charged while purchasing the vehicle in question.

 

[b] Pay a composite amount of Rs.2000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation; 

 

 

18.          The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1&4; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above, apart from paying composite payment of Rs.2000/- as in sub-para [b] above, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

19.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

9 September, 2015                                            

sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER