IMPORTANT POINT
Charges / value of the complementary items - the act of taking the charges / value of the complementary items from the complainant against the terms of order form amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 175 of 2012 styled as Sh. S.K. Sharma Vs. Sant’s Hyundai & Another, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant – appellant approached the dealer, i.e. respondent No. 1 for purchasing an i10 (Hyundai make car) price of the case quoted by the dealer was Rs. 4,59,000/- with cash discount of Rs. 2,000/- besides complementary items viz insurance, seat cover, registration, matting, mud flap, body cover and central locking were offered as complementary items; in addition to above exchange bonus amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and corporate discount for Rs. 3,000/- were admissible to be paid to complainant by respondent No. 1 in accordance with customer order form. The said offer was conditional upon payment to be given in advance up to 31.12.2011; the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 4,57,000/- after deducting Rs. 2,000/- towards cash discount offered by respondent No. 1 through cheque in advance before 31.12.2011, but at the time of delivery of the vehicle in question on 15.01.2012, the appellant was surprised to see the retail invoice for Rs. 4,32,920/- only where as an amount of Rs. 4,57,000/- was paid by the complainant towards full and final payment of the cost of the said car in advance through cheques for which receipt Nos. 125 and 137 were issued by respondent No. 1. No satisfactory answer was given by the respondent No. 1 for discrepancy occurred in the above two invoices; it is further averred that sale consultant of respondent No. 1 at the time of delivery of car in question informed that after a period of three months exchange bonus and corporate discount of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- respectively will be paid on providing copy of R.C. of old vehicle registered in the name of the complainant / transferor and copy of R.C. of old vehicle after getting it transferred in the name of transferee. That by subsequent issuing retail invoice of Rs. 4,32,920/- against previous invoice of Rs. 4,57,000/- already paid by complainant through cheque respondent No. 1 manipulated figure of invoice amount to its advantage and to disadvantage of the complainant which comes within the meaning of unfair trade practice putting the appellant in embarrassing position since complaint withdrew vehicle advance of Rs. 4,49,258/- from his employer THDC India Ltd., therefore, the complainant had to deposit the differential amount of Rs. 16,338/- to its employer. The complainant wrote a letter to Mr. B.S. Seo, MD & CEO of respondent No. 2 making the copy to respondent No. 1. Thereafter, three persons from respondent No. 1 approached the complainant with a cheque of Rs. 3,000/- towards corporate discount and tried to persuade complainant not to approach Consumer Forum in this matter; respondent No. 1 sent a revised invoice dated 31.12.2011 bearing No. H-201100127 explaining that the earlier invoice of similar number was issued for an amount of Rs. 4,32,920/- as per accounting procedure, but fresh / revised invoice is being issued as per requirement of complainant. It is explicitly clear that it is jugglery of accounting procedure having no transparency in business dealing, thereby the respondents have not only be fooled the customer – complainant, but also evaded VAT on their business sales and made pecuniary gain to themselves and pecuniary loss to the customer – complainant and also to the Government agency. Hence the complainant was compelled to bring / file the complaint before the District Commission.

3. In the written statement the opposite party No. 1 – Sant’s Hyundai has pleaded that the amount shown in order form Rs. 4,57,000