M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

FA No.2085/ 2016.

1.         Shri Akash Malik,

            Director,

C.I. HYUNDAI,

Through 189, Jinsi,

Maida Mill Road,

Jehangirabad, Bhopal (M.P.).

2.         C.I. HYUNDAI,

            Through The Manager,

189, Jinsi,

Maida Mill Road,

Jehangirabad, Bhopal (M.P.).                    …. APPELLANTS.

                        Versus

1.         Shri Deepak Kumar Sharma,

s/o Shri Shyamlalji Sharma,

R/o Ward No.10,

Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha (MP)

2.         Shri Rajendra Raghuwanshi,

s/o Shri Man Singh Raghuwanshi,

R/o House of Anil Marjedkar,

Vijay Nagar Colony,

Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (MP).                       ….RESPONDENTS.

BEFORE:

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :

SHRI DEEPESH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS.

SHRI VARUN SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

NO.1.

NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2.

• 2 -

O R D E R

(Passed on    11/05 / 2023)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shantanu S. Kemkar, J  :

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 challenging the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vidisha (for short the ‘District Commission’) in CC No.46/2015. 

2.                     The facts as are crystallized and are emerging after passing of the impugned order are in nut shell as under :

                        The appellants are the dealers of Hyundai Cars.  The second respondent is their authorized Sales Consultant.  According to the complainant he had visited the show room of the appellants and contacted second respondent – Sales Consultant for purchase of Hyundai Car and as per the discussions the price of the car was fixed at Rs.3,40,000/- which included premium amount for insurance, registration of the vehicle and other taxes.  On 4.8.2014 the complainant had made part payment of Rs.2,40,000/- in cash to the second respondent towards the price of the Hyundai car.  After the said payment was made by the first respondent / complainant to the second respondent the car was delivered to the complainant on 4.8.2014.   On 5.10.2014 balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in cash by the complainant to second respondent.  Inspite of receiving entire price of the car through the second respondent the

• 3 -

appellants again demanded Rs.1,06,114/- from the complainant stating that the amount which was paid by the complainant to their agent the second respondent was not paid by the second respondent to them.  Alleging non-receipt of the full price of the car the appellants refused to handover papers necessary for registration of the car to the complainant.  Feeling aggrieved, the complainant had filed a complaint case seeking directions against the appellants to provide invoice, sale letter, insurance policy, registration of the vehicle and the receipts showing deposit of taxes with regard to the car.  He also claimed compensation on account of mental agony to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.

3.                     The appellants resisted the claim and stated that the complainant had visited the showroom to purchase the Hyundai car and agreed to pay Rs.3,46,114/- towards the price of the car.  The appellants have accepted in their reply of receiving the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards price of the car, but deni