Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/250/2018

Sh. Vikram Joshi, Managing Director, Harmony Honda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Seema Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Verma,Adv.

29 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	250 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	19.09.2018
Date of Decision	:	29.01.2019

 

1.     Sh. Vikram Joshi, Managing Director, Harmony Honda, C/o Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

2.     Ms. Geetanjali, Deputy Sales Manager, Harmony Honda, C/o Joshi Automotives Pvt. Limited, Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

 …….Appellants/Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.

 

Versus

1.     Seema Sharma, Secretary, w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Resident of House No. 2128, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

...Respondent/Complainant.

 

2.     The Chief Executive Officer, Honda Cars India Limited, Registered Office 409, Tower-B, DLF Commercial Complex, Jasola, New Delhi – 110025.

3.     Honda Cars India Limited, through its Authorized Signatory, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201306.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986 against  order dated 09.08.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh  in Consumer Complaint No.1090 of 2016.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. S. K. Bawa, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Ravi Nayak, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   The appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4 have filed this appeal against order dated 09.08.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, complaint bearing No.1090 of 2016 filed by respondent No.1/complainant was partly allowed in the following manner:-

“11.            In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To refund the excess charged amount of Rs.43,000/- to the Complainant;

[b]    To pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of     deficiency in service and causing mental and physical    harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

                The Complainant qua Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, stands dismissed.

12.              The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].” 

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that allured by the offer of insurance @ Re.1/- and free accessories by the representatives of the Opposite Parties, he purchased Honda Amaze (SMT) by paying Rs.7,44,000/- on 11.08.2016. It was stated that the complainant was delivered a car manufactured in the month of April 2016 and was issued invoice of lesser amount. It was further stated that instead of Rs.7,44,000/-, the complainant was handed over invoice of Rs.7,01,240/-. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties by every possible means but when they failed to satisfy her grievance, she got a legal notice dated 03.09.2016 served upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Hence, complaint was filed before the Forum.

3.             Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the allegations raised by the complainant was mainly against the dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.3 and not qua them. It was further stated that the vehicle sold to the complainant was 2016 model, which was in the knowledge of the complainant. It was further stated that upon inquiry from Opposite Party No.3, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 found that at the time of selling the car, the Sales Executive had duly furnished the information that the vehicle sold to the complainant was that of April 2016 Model. It was further stated that the complainant was satisfied with the model and had accorded her permission to purchase the April, 2016 model car. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 shared principal to principal relationship with its dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.3 wherein each party is responsible for its own acts of omission and commission and none assumes any liability for the acts of others. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had no role to play or to control the sale made by Opposite Party No.3 and could not be held liable for the acts or omissions of the others. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             Opposite Parties No.3 & 4, in their reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as per invoice, the vehicle was manufactured in April 2016 and nothing was hidden at the time of delivery, which was accepted by the complainant. Receipt of amount of Rs.7,44,000/- through RTGS was received. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 did not charge excess amount as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that the ex-showroom basic sale price of the vehicle was Rs.7,52,400/- and after giving total discount of Rs.51,160/- to the complainant, invoice was issued for a sum of Rs.7,01,240/-. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of opposite parties No.3 & 4 nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             The complainant filed replication wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of the opposite parties.

6.            The parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint as referred to above.

7.             Order passed by the Forum has been impugned by the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4 on the ground that the star document (Annexure R-2) placed on record alongwith the written statement, was not considered by the Forum. Referring to Annexures R-1, which is commitment checklist/summary of promotional schemes given to the customer and R-2, a certificate given by the complainant qua availing of discount/corporate benefit, it was argued that net amount payable by respondent No.1/complainant was Rs.7,43,154/- after giving cash discount of Rs.21,337/-, corporate discount of Rs.4,000/-, cash discount of Rs.7,500/- in lieu of seat cover, cash discount of Rs.7,323/- in lieu of extended warranty and additional cash discount of Rs.11,000/-. It was further submitted that as such, respondent No.1/complainant was granted total discount of Rs.51,160/-. It was further submitted that Annexure R-2 was signed by the complainant, wherein he certified to have availed discounts of Rs.51,160/-. By placing reliance on details submitted on Page 12 of the appeal it was argued that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid by respondent No.1/complainant in cash on 28.07.2017 and Rs.7,44,000/- was paid by him through RTGS on 11.08.2016. Thus, net different of Rs.5,846/- was refunded to respondent No.1/complainant vide cheque. It was further submitted that Invoice for Rs.7,01,240/- was issued.  It was argued that no excess amount was ever charged by the appellants. Lastly, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

8.                   Rebutting the arguments raised by Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4, Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant states that the Forum rightly directed the opposite parties to refund the excess of R.43,000/- charged from her. It was submitted that they charged Rs.7,44,188/- vide Performa Invoice and issued bill of Rs.7,01,240/- and tried to justify the same by giving details of amount in their written statement.  It was further submitted that Performa Invoice dated 28.07.2016 is a very crucial document, on which, the Forum has rightly taken cognizance of while passing the impugned order. It was argued that the Forum rightly allowed the complaint by giving correct findings. It was prayed that the impugned order be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4 be dismissed.

9.             After going through the evidence on record and submissions of the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

10.           The key document, on which the Forum has placed reliance while passing the impugned order, is Performa Invoice dated 28.07.2016 issued by the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4. In this document, the ex-showroom price of the vehicle, in question, is mentioned as Rs.7,52,400/-, depreciation waiver of Rs.4,961/-, Hydrostatic Lock (Rs.827/-) and grand total is mentioned as Rs.7,58,188/-. After giving corporate discount plus benefit of scheme to the tune of Rs.14,000/-, the net payable amount is shown as Rs.7,44,188/-. Issuance of this document by the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4 has not been denied. Rather the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4 tried to deviate from this document by giving frivolous detail of amount in Para 6 of their written statement, as also reiterated in Para 3 of the grounds of appeal. Bill issued on 11.08.2016 was for an amount of Rs.7,01,240/-. Thus, in our opinion, the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4 charged an excess amount of Rs.43,000/-, refund whereof has rightly been ordered by the Forum by giving concurrent finding. Para 10 of the impugned order, being relevant is extracted hereunder:-

“10.   It is thus legitimately proved that the Complainant paid the amount of Rs.7,44,188/- on 11.08.2016 after receiving the calculations from the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4. Notwithstanding this, the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 issued a bill of Rs.7,01,240/- on 11.08.2016 and in order to justify their wrongs the they (OPs No.3 & 4) explained the details of amount in Para No.6 of their written version which is totally in negation to the proforma invoice ibid. It is important to note that Basic Sale Price of the car was shown as Rs.7,52,400/- in the invoice and a discount of Rs.51,160/- has been shown by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 and a sum of Rs.21,337/- was charged for insurance; whereas, it has been shown Rs.1/- in the proforma invoice. Similarly, along with written statement of Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 Hydrostatic Lock has been shown for a value of Rs.1822/-; whereas, in the proforma invoice it has been shown as Rs.827/-. In these set of circumstances, we are of the concerted onion that since the stand and figures submitted by the Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 do not tally and are self-contradictory, they cannot derive any benefit therefrom. Thus, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are definitely guilty of deficiency in service & unfair trade practice which certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced her to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. At any rate, Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 are liable to refund the excess amount, along with compensation and costs of the present proceedings.”

11.           In our considered view, the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4 miserably failed to vitiate its own document i.e. Performa Invoice dated 28.07.2016. Vehicle Retail invoice dated 11.08.2016 in the sum of Rs.7,01,240/- also corroborates the case of respondent No.1/complainant that an excess amount of Rs.43,000/- was charged by the appellants/opposite parties        No.3 & 4. The Forum, while allowing refund of the excess amount, also rightly directed the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs of litigation to respondent No.1/complainant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

12.           No other point was raised by the Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties No.3 & 4.

13.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

14.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

29.01.2019.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad