Back
Appeal No.
24 of 2014
Sh. S.K. Sharma
Vs.
Sant’s Hyundai and another
07.12.2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Institution: 06.03.2014
Date of Final Hearing: 16.11.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 07.12.2022
First Appeal No. 24 / 2014
Sh. S.K. Sharma S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma
R/o H. No. T-27, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Advocate)
…..Appellant
VERSUS
1. Sant’s Hyundai (a unit of Amrit Auto)
Sant Bhawan, Arya Nagar, Jwalapur
(Through: Sh. A.S. Shah, Advocate)
…..Respondent No. 1
2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd.
Irrugattukottai NH-4, Sriperumbudur Taluk
Kanchipuram District Tamil Nadu
(Through: Sh. Nitin Kumar, Advocate)
…..Respondent No. 2
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani,
Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral,
Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. 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
Appeal No.
24 of 2014
Sh. S.K. Sharma
Vs.
Sant’s Hyundai and another
07.12.2022
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
Appeal No.
24 of 2014
Sh. S.K. Sharma
Vs.
Sant’s Hyundai and another
07.12.2022
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. Thereaf
