Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/446

Puneet Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Northern Motors Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

07 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 446 dated 17.09.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 07.09.2022.

 

Mr. Puneet Mittal s/o. Sh. Satish Kumar, Geeta Colony, House No.1015/29bdm, Street No.3, Block No.18, Jagraon (Ludhiana)-142026                                                                                                                       ..…Complainant 

•  

M/s. Northern Motors Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road (West), near Best Price, Jalandhar Byepass, Ludhiana. Ph. No.01613922000 through its Manager.                                                                                                                   …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Puneet Mittal in person

For OP                           :         Sh. Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Hyundai i10 car from the OP. Prior to purchase of the car, the OP disclosed that the total cost of the car would be Rs.7,49,000/- which included ex-showroom price of Rs.,6,57,804/-, handling charges Rs.3,000/-, cow cess Rs.1,000/-, accessories Rs.4,500/-, insurance of Rs.29,534/- and registration charges of Rs.53,393/-. The complainant paid Rs.4,40,000/- by way of bank draft, Rs.14,000/- in cash and a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was adjusted as exchange price of the old Alto car. The OP represented the complainant that the total cost of the car would be Rs.7,46,000/-. The OP further charged GST on discounted amount also at the time of payment. The OP promised a cash discount of Rs.85,000/- but gave discount of Rs.75,057/- only. The RC cost charged from the complainant was Rs.53,172/-  but the OP made payment of Rs.48,414/- to the concerned department. Similarly, the OP charged a sum of Rs.29,534/- on account of insurance but as per the policy, the premium of insurance was only Rs.21,607/-. In this regard, the complainant lodged a complaint with National Consumer helpline but no action was taken. Due to harassment by the OP, father of the complainant suffered hypertension and heart attack in April 2019. A legal notice dated 21.07.2017 was served upon the OP but the same was not responded to. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be made to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for having caused harassment to the complainant.      

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. According to the OP, it received a sum of Rs.4,40,000/-  by way of demand draft and Rs.14,000/- in cash from the complainant. Apart from that, an old car of the complainant was adjusted against an exchange offer of Rs.1,83,000/-. In this manner, the total cost of the car was Rs.7,35,802/- including all the expenses. Therefore, no extra amount has been charged by the OP. On merits, it has been denied if the cost of the car was Rs.7,49,000/-. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C15 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amit Bhasin, Marketing Executive of the OP along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R5 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have gone through the record and also heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and the counsel for the OP.

7.                The complainant has pointed out that as per invoice Ex. C7, the cost of the car was Rs.5,60,980/-. The cost of the insurance was Rs.21,651/- and cost of registration was Rs.48,414/-. In addition to this, as per performa invoice a sum of Rs.3,000/- was payable on account of accessories. Another sum of  Rs.3,000/- on account of  handling charges and Rs.1,000/- on account of cow cess. In this manner, the cost of the car comes to Rs.6,38,045/-.According to the complainant, as against this, the OP charged a sum of Rs.6,64,000/- i.e. Rs.4,40,000/- by way of demand draft, Rs.14,000/- against cash and Rs.2,10,000/- as exchange value of the old car. The complainant has claimed that the OP is bound to refund the excess amount along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as prayed for in the complaint.   

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has argued that the cost of the old car adjusted was Rs.1,83,000/- and not Rs.2,10,000/- as claimed by the complainant and if the value of the old car was Rs.1,83,000/-, the payment made by the complainant towards the cost of the car in aggregate comes to Rs.6,37,000/- whereas the total cost of the car comes to Rs.6,38,045/-. Therefore, no extra amount has been charged from the complainant and the complaint is false and frivolous and same is liable to be dismissed.    

9.                From whatever has been argued by the parties, the bone of contentions between the parties seems to be the case of the old car. The complainant claims that the exchange value of the car was Rs.2,10,000/- while the OP has claimed this value to be Rs.1,83,000/-. The complainant has not enable to refer to any document whereby the OP might have agreed to adjust a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- as value of the old car. Rather the complainant himself has placed on record receipt Ex. C5 in which the value of the old car given in exchange is mentioned as Rs.1,83,000/- which is further bifurcated into Rs.1,63,000/- as cost of the old car and Rs.20,000/- as exchange  bonus. The complainant has claimed that the receipt is Ex. C5 is forged and fabricated. However, it would be quite arduous to say that the receipt Ex. C5 is if forged                           document or that the amount of Rs.1,83,000/- was subsequently mentioned. Moreover, the complainant has not enable to refer to any other document whereby the price of the old car might have been agreed to be Rs.2,10,000/- and not Rs.1,83,000/-. In this regard, the complainant has pointed out that it was orally agreed by the OP that the cost of the old car would be adjusted at Rs.2,10,000/-. It is well settled that once the receipt Ex. C5, the cost of the old car is mentioned as Rs.1,83,000/- it would be difficult to hold that the OP be agreed to adjust Rs.2,10,000/- as cost of the car and issued receipt of only Rs.1,83,000/-. In these circumstances, in our considered view, the complainant has failed to prove that the OP charged some extra money from the complainant towards the cost of the car which was not due. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service of service is me out on the part of the OP.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Puneet Mittal Vs Northern Hyundai                                CC/19/446

Present:       Complainant Sh. Puneet Mittal in person.

                   Sh. Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.