IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of binding contract between complainant and opposite parties, complainant cannot be said to be consumer.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—Rajeshwar @ Rajesh Tyagi has filed the instant consumer complaint against M/s Audi India, OP-1 ( Proprietorship/Group concern/Division of Volkswagen Group Sales ( I) P. Ltd., OP No.2 Audi Finance ( Proprietorship of Volkswagen Finance P. Ltd and OP no. 3 & 4 Audi Delhi West and Audi Delhi South, dealers of OP No.1

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in March 2013, the complainant came across a promotional advertisement in respect of the offer given by the opposite parties, which reads as under:

“Book now.

Offer Valid on the Audi Q3 till 10.00 pm, 19th March.

Rs. 24 lakh at O% for 36 months with a down payment of Rs. 5 lakh.

Audi Finance www.audi.in.”

3. It is the case of the complainant that on coming across the said advertisement, the complainant promptly sent a message to the opposite party showing his willingness to accept the alluring offer. The complainant vide his emails dated 18th and 19th March, 2013 called upon the opposite parties for the needful to effectuate and execute the order. It is contended that time being short, the complainant sought bank account number of the opposite parties to deposit the cheque for down payment of Rs.5,00,000/- unless the opposite party desired and opted to get it collected. The opposite parties, however, did not honour email of the complainant showing acceptance of the offer and willingness to tender the down payment. It is alleged that opposite parties wasted invaluable time, ensuring lapse of the offer given in the above noted advertisement and later quoted higher price on 06.04.2013, which was almost one and half times to the advertised price of sale offered by the opposite parties. Even though the complainant’s driving license was called for by the opposite party no.3 on 12.04.2013, opposite party no.3 took a total turn around, which showed that the intention of the opposite parties was anything but bonafide and business like. It is further alleged that OP No.3 sought meeting with him vide email dated 18.04.2013. The meeting took place on 23.04.2013 and it failed because OP No.3 insisted on higher price already quoted in its invoice earlier. Similarly, OP No. 4 also quoted a higher price and denied to supply the subject SUV as per the above noted promotional offer of the opposite parties. It is alleged that because of refusal of opposite party to sell / deliver the car in question as per the advertised offer, the complainant has suffered immensely, the opposite parties are, therefore, held liable to the bargain offer as per the advertisement. It is alleged that opposite parties are thus guilty of adopting unfair trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale of one of their products. Hence, the complaint seeking following reliefs:

“1. To accept this as a class action complaint appointing and treating this complainant representing the said class.

2. Opposite Parties, in deference to their advertisement, be directed and ordered to sell/supply/deliver the car being the top diesel variant of SUV AUDI-Q3, at the all told and advertised on road price of Rs29 Lakhs with down payment of Rs.5 lakhs and balance Rs.24 lakhs on interest free 36 equated monthly instalments of Rs.66,666 each vide Annexure P/I.

3. Complainant further prays for award of Rs.5.50 crores as damages on account of pain, agony and harassment from the false representations of Opposite Parties and to decline and refuse the offer as aforesaid to complainant. Amount claimed with interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing of this complaint till actual payment.

4. Opposite Parties be directed to pay to the State a sum of Rs.100 crores as punitive damages for adopting an unfair Trade Practice of false, deceptive and advertising and for the malpractice of BAIT and SWITCH to charge a different and higher price as against their advertised promotional offer to the public at large, and all this only for their Unjust Enrichment.

5. To refer the case to authority regulatin