Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (B) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 07.12.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 24/2014 in which order dated 31.01.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 175/2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for (i) setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the State Commission in FA/24/2014, (ii) restoring the order dated 13.01.2014 passed in CC/175/2012 by the District Forum and (iii) dismissing the complaint filed by Respondent-1 before the District Forum.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Respondent -1 before the State Commission and OP-1 before the District Forum and the Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant before the State Commission before and Complainant before the District Forum, Respondent-2 (hereinafter referred to as OP-2) was Respondent -2 before the State Commission and OP-2 before the District Forum.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 01.03.2023. Parties filed Written Arguments on 28.02.2024 (Petitioner) and 28.02.2024 (Respondent-1) respectively. Respondent-2 was proceeded ex parte.
4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the Complainant and emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -
The complainant approached respondent No. 1 for purchasing an i10 (Hyundai make car) price of the car 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 Complainant 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 complainant was given the retail invoice for Rs. 4,32,920/- only, whereas 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 receipts were issued by respondent No. 1. The 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 respondent No. 2 with a 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. Hence the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.
5. Vide Order dated 05.02.2014, in the CC 175/2012, the District Forum has dismissed the Complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 05.02.2014 of District Forum, Respondent-1/Complainant appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 07.12.2022 allowed the FA No.24/2014, set aside the order passed by the District Forum and allowed the complaint and ordered that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.24080/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint, i.e. 22.06.2012 till its actual realization.
7. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 07.12.2022 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The State Commission had not exercised the powers so vested in it and has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity. The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that two Invoices were the result of the insistence of Complainant/Respondent No. 1 for having an Invoice of Rs.4,57,000/- since he has paid that amount to the Petitioner. The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the Invoice in the sum of Rs.4,32,920 was as per accounting procedure and that other items as stated in the Customer Order Form could not have formed part of the basic cost of the Car plus VAT.
(ii) The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that had the price of Insurance and Registration been included in the Invoice then the Complainant had to pay extra 13.5% VAT on the said amounts.
(iii) The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that Complainant had duly singed the Customer Order Form and accepted that the on road price of the Vehicle would be Rs.4,57,000/-. The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that Complainant had in fact paid the sum of Rs.4,57,000/- as per the Customer Order Form and that not a single penny extra has been charged from him by the Petitioner. The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that Complainant has time and again admitted that he had been quoted the Price of the Car i10 Sportz Model Make - Hyundai as Rs.4,59,000/- less a cash discount of Rs.2,000/- making the on road final price of the said Car to Rs.4,57,000/- and this is the price which admittedly the Complainant has paid to the Petitioner.
(iv) The State Commission failed to appreciate the true intent of the contents as contained in the Customer Order Form wherein it was clearly stated that the on road price of the Car would be Rs.4,57,000/- and upon the Complainant paying the said amount then and only then such a situation the freebees would be made available to him and in fact the same have been made available to him at no extra cost.
(v) The State Commission, Uttarakhand has wrongly held that the act of taking the charges/value of the complimentary items against the terms of order form amounts to deficiency in service and hence the finding given by District Forum is erroneous.
(vi) The State Commission has wrongly held that the District Forum has wrongly appreciated the complimentary items and special bonus items to be inclusive of the price of first Invoice and hence their order is perverse and not in accordance with law and facts. The order passed by the State Commission is bad in law and is against the facts and circumstances of the case and is against the principles of natural justice. The State Commission has failed to appreciate the correct position of law and the order/judgment of the State Commission has been passed in a mechanical manner. The order of the State Commission is based on conjectures and surmises. The State Commission has not appreciated the facts of the case in their true perspective.
8. Heard counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
8.1 In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner contended that upon frivolous dispute raised by Respondent-1 and on his insistence a Duplicate Invoice of the same date i.e. 31.12.2011 in the sum of Rs.4,57,000/- is raised and handed over to him. The invoice was raised at his request to enable him to claim the balance amount from his department though for the Accounting purposes the Invoice earlier issued by the Petitioner is valid. The Respondent-1 chooses to file a false and frivolous complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. The complaint filed by the Respondent-1 herein was dismissed by the District Forum holding that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by Respondent-1. It is further contended that the District Forum passed a well-reasoned order as to how the first Invoice raised by the Petitioner is correct whereas the State Commission has not at all appreciated the terms as contained in the Customer Order Forum and has mechanically passed the impugned judgment.
8.2 On the other hand Respondent-1 contended that the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the State Commission is well-reasoned and ought not be interfered with as the same is based on sound reasoning and correct interpretation of facts and law. It is contended that the amount of Rs.4,57,000/- was paid by the Respondent-1 to the Petitioner as the on-road price of the said car. Further, the Customer Order Form dated 27.12.2011 clearly stated that Insurance and registration is complimentary, and no monetary value is being ascribed to the same. Therefore, the Petitioner could not have issued an invoice for a reduced sum on the ground that the balance amount is towards the registration and insurance. The State Commission has, in a very detailed and cogent manner, given reasons for setting aside the order of the District Forum.
9. We have carefully gone through the orders of the District Forum, State Commission, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. In this case, the Petitioner issued two invoices one for Rs.4,57,000/- and other for Rs.4,32,920/-. Receipt of Rs.4,57,000/- from the Respondent-1 herein is not in dispute. Issuance of two different invoices on the same date for different amounts for the same product itself is a wrongful action on the part of the Petitioner. The justification given by the Petitioner for doing so is not valid. Customer Order Form also states the price on road as Rs.4,57,000/-. Based on invoice dated 31.12.2011 for Rs.4,32,920/-, the Respondent -1 has also reported to his controlling authority, i.e., Manager (F & A) THDC India Ltd. vide letter dated 15.02.2012 that he has purchased the car for Rs.4,32,920/- and therefore he refunded the balance amount of Rs.16,338/-(excess amount of loan drawn). The State Commission has considered at length all the contentions of the parties and has given a well-reasoned order. The extract of the relevant paras of the order of the State Commission are reproduced below:
“8. It is an admitted fact that before the lower Commission, there were two retail invoices (paper Nos. 4/3 and 4/17 of the District Commission's record). In retail invoice (paper No. 4/3), the particulars and amount have elaborately described wherein both are of the same date, i.e. 31.12.2011. In the retailed invoice (paper No. 4/3), the amount is shown as Rs. 4,32,920/-, wherein in retail invoice (revised invoice) (paper No. 4/17), the retail amount has shown as Rs.4,57,000/-.
9. In the written statement, the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 have averred that the amount shown in the order form Rs.4,57,000/- was included with registration as well as insurance and other items, whereas the retail invoice for the purchase of car to the complaint for Rs.4,32,920/- was issued after deducting the expenses of insurance as well as registration and other items.
10. Here it is to mention that the difference as per both the retail invoices comes to Rs. 24,080/-. The main dispute between the parties in this matter is only for Rs.24,080/-.
xxxx
12. As per the customer order form, the insurance and registration charges are the complimentary items. As per the above documentary evidence, it is also mentioned that the complementary items are gifts and no cash value is assigned by us. It is meant that the opposite parties - respondents cannot charge any amount for registration and insurance. Therefore, as per the documentary evidence of the respondent, the defense version is not proved that the amount shown in the order form Rs.4,57,000/- was included with registration and other items, if the insurance and registration charges and other items are given free to the customer as per order form, then the respondent could not recovered the amount for the above.
13. The respondents are bound by their documentary evidence (paper No. 23). The complainant has clearly mentioned in his complaint that he has paid Rs.4,57,000/- through cheques in advance before 31.12.2011. The contention of para No. 6 of the complaint was not specifically denied by the opposite parties - respondents in their written statements. Hence, in the absence of such specific denial, the adverse inference shall be drawn that the amount of Rs.4,57,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties in time, i.e. before 31.12.2011.”
10. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed.
11. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
