w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


M/s. Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. v/s T.K. Mathur & Others

    First Appeal No. 646 of 2013, 126 of 2014
    Decided On, 20 December 2019
    At, Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. SALMA NOOR
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER
    For the Appearing Parties: -----------------


Judgment Text

1. These two appeals are preferred against the same impugned order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the District Forum (North-East), Bunkur Vihar Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93 in CC-406/2011.

2. Appeal No. 126/2014 is filed by the complainant for seeking enhancement of compensation and appeal No. 646/2013 is filed by OP for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2013.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter addressed as were before the Ld. District Forum.

4. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) was filed by the complainant before the District Forum stating therein that he had purchased a Hyundai Car I-10 Model MAGNA 1.2 BSIV F/L SLEEK SILVER vide Invoice No. H201000993 on 28.01.11 from the OP-1 before through their Sale Outlet and Show Room of the OP-2 for Rs.4,22,000/-. It was alleged that for the purchase of the car, the OP-1 has offered an exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/- against the sale of complainant’s old car, free insurance of Rs.12,710/- and a cash discount of Rs.2,000/- all aggregating to Rs. 24,710/-. An invoice of Rs.3,98,042/- was issued instead of Rs.4,22,752 /-. It was alleged that ex-showroom price of the car included VAT/LST was of Rs.44,227/-. However, ex-showroom price quoted to the complainant on 16.01.2011 was Rs.4,22,752/- and the same was paid by him. It was alleged that the OP-1 had charged Rs. 3,53,185/- in the retail invoice as quoted by them in the company advertisement the consequence thereof within the complainant had received any discount nor the benefits aggregating to Rs. 24,710/-

5. It was alleged that opposite party had fraudulently quoted a hire ex-showroom price of the car at the time of booking by an amount equivalent to Rs. 24,710/- which they had agreed to give him by way of discounts/benefits and later shown an equal amount as discount to arrived at the actual price of the car. In response to the letter written to Mr. Manish Suri General Manager Sales, off the OP vide his letter dated 28.04.2011 had replied that the price of the car was Rs. 4,22,752/- and they had given the agreed discount to the complainant.

6. In view of the aforesaid fact complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum seeking refund of Rs. 24,710/- as agreed by OP at the time of booking and Rs. 3,00,000/- for compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for costs of litigation.

7. On notices written statement filed by respondent-1 & 2 jointly it was contended that the present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action arises to the complainant against them. They have charged the due and correct amount to the complainant nothing extra had been paid by the complainant. It is submitted by them that Rs. 4,00,752/- was the ex-showroom price and Rs. 3,98,042/- was the cost price of the car after the deduction of the discounts available to the complainant. The answering respondents have admitted the exchange bonus, free insurance and cash discount benefits that were given to the complainant and no refund is due to the complainant from their side. Rest of the allegations have been denied. In the written statement filed by OP-3 while admitting the fact of purchase of car by the complainant on 28.01.2011 form OP-1 & 2 it was contended that its relation with its dealer is on principle to principle basis and it liability is limited to only warranty obligations. It is submitted that on the basis of information available OP-2 had already explained to the complainant in detail that no extra amount has been collected by it while selling the car in question was delivered to the complainant on 28.01.2011 but the advertisement annexed with the complaint has been published on 20.12.2011 as a consequence of which the same has no relevance in this matter and also submitted that the advertisement only states the starting price of base variant of particular car model and in no way reflects that all the variants of I-10 care have the same starting price, which varies from base variant to the top end variant as per model additional features etc. it has vehemently denied its role in the present complaint.

8. Parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and held that they had wrongly charged from the complainant insurance amount as well as logistic charges and passed the following orders:

“taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration we direct the respondent No. 1 & 2 to refund the amount of insurance and logistic charges to the complainant which comes to Rs. 19,000/- (Rs. 12710/- + Rs. 6290/-) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Further, we award a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for the harassment meted out to him and Rs. 2000/- as cost of this litigation.”

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed by the complainant as well as OP-1 i.e. M/s Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.

10. The contention of OP-1 i.e. M/s Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. that the Ld. District Forum has misinterpreted the contents of the record i.e. letter dated 28.04.2011 written by Mr. Manish Suri, General Manager (Sales) and the performa invoice dated 16.09.2011. It is further alleged that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate that ex-showroom price of the car was Rs. 4,22,752/- and the total cost of car comes to the amount which included ex-showroom prices registration and road tax, insurance or anything if demanded by the customer. It is stated that letter dated 16.01.2011 reveals that Rs. 4,67,488/- was total amount for sale of the car and the discount available was given to complainant as mentioned in the above said letter. It is further stated that both the letters mentioned above speak the same facts and also it is clear from the documents that complainant was given the benefits/discount i.e. amount of Rs. 24,710/-as agreed by the OP-1.

11. It is further stated that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate that by any mode of calculation, the amount charged from the complainant is correct and genuine and nothing extra has been charged from complainant. It is further alleged that Ld. District Forum wrongly interpreted that contents of the public Notice no. DIP/1331/2011-2012 issued by the Dy. Commissioner (Operation Branch), Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi.

12. Contention of the complainant is that the compensation awarded to him is very meager. It is stated that he had asked for the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- wherein the compensation awarded to him of Rs. 10,000/- only.

13. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

14. First I will decide the Appeal No. 646/2013 filed by M/s Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. It is apparent from the letter dated 28.04.2011 written by Sh. Manish Suri to the complainant that the ex-showroom price of the car was Rs. 4,22,752/- and this correspondence to the ex-showroom price as quoted by the appellant in performa invoice dated 16.01.2011.

15. Further perusal of the calculation given in the said letter, it is clear that from the ex-showroom price Rs. 4,22,752/-, the appellant has deducted the benefits/discount agreed by which amounting to Rs. 24,710/-, which includes Rs. 12,710/- towards insurance, Rs. 10,000/- for exchange bonus and cash discount of Rs. 2,000/-. After deduction of Rs. 24,710/- from ex-showroom price of the car Rs. 4,22,752/-. The price of the car comes to Rs. 3,98,042/- which is reflected in retail invoice No. H201000993 dated 28.01.2011 though in a bifurcated form as Rs. 3,53,815/- being the price of the car and Rs. 44,227/- as VAT/LST thereon @ 12.5%. added up these two figures stated above which comes to Rs. 3,98,042/-. However, in the retail invoice of the car, appellant has charged Rs. 40,581/- by way of “other charges” details of which had been given by the appellant to the complainant vide their letter dated 04.03.2011 which is on record. From the letter dated 04.03.2011, it seems that after giving benefit of insurance, the appellant has charged him insurance charge of Rs. 12,710/-under the grab of “other Charges” in the retail invoice which is obvious from the calculation given. In its letter dated 04.03.2011 appellant had added an insurance amount of Rs. 3,98,042/- after deducting it earlier from Rs. 4,22,752/-, the ex-showroom price of the car was in question.

16. In view of above discussion there is no doubt that appellant has not given benefits pertaining to the insurance to the complainant as agreed between them at the time of booking the vehicle.

17. The appellant has also charged Rs. 6,290/- towards logistics under the head of the other charges which is also illegal and violation of the terms and conditions of the Trade Certificate and Empowerment of Self Registration Authority in view of the public notice No. DIP/1331/2011-12 issued by the Dy. Commissioner (Operation Branch), Transport Department.

18. In view of the above discussion, it is confirmed that appellant has wrongly charged to the complainant insurance amount of Rs. 12,710/- and logistic charges of Rs. 6,290/- and the Ld. District Forum has rightly dir

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ected the appellant to refund an amount of insurance and logistic charges which comes to Rs. 19,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2000/- as costs of litigation. 19. I found no illegality in the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Forum. Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed accordingly. 20. Now I will take the appeal filed by the complainant, Mr. T.K. Mathur i.e. FA-126/2014, I found no ground for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum. The Ld. District Forum has awarded Rs. 12,000/- compensation for the deficiency of Rs. 19,000/- which is in my view is appropriate and awarding compensation is discretion of Court and that cannot be challenged. As a result appeal filed by the complainant is also dismissed. 21. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be sent to the parties free of cost and also to the concerned District Forum. Record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
O R