Before the National Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission: INA: New Delhi. In Re.: C.C. # 260 of 2013. Vs.

Audi India & 3 ors. Opposite Parties.

Rajeshwar Tyagi Complainant.

Complaint u/s 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. Sir, The Complainant states as under:1. End of era of barter system of trade and dawn and proclamation of laissez faire economies to mean Let do and let pass, the world goes on by itself, the merchants and traders the world over were to strive hard to sell their products and merchandise. Dawn of laissez faire environment in any geographical region or nation opens the flood gates to competition in trade and business and for competition to vent up and take wings. 2. Gainsay competition amongst other advantages results in better and qualitative products and to be available at the most competitive prices. This is for the overall good of not only the nation in general but its people in particular. Thus invented the concept of Advertising. 3. Honesty, fairness and truthfulness are the primordial requisites of all human behaviour and should not be allowed to put in peril by any unscrupulous, dishonest and fraudulent conduct or allowing anyone to behave in any casual or cavalier manner much less even to hold any person to ransom for extortion or unlawful gain and enrichment as with the complainant and his class of people in the instant case.

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~2~

4.

Ever since Indian economy opened up its gates for globalisation in early nineties multinational corporations (MNCs) invaded it for anything and everything and to oust the individual entrepreneur, the hallmark and back bone of all business/commercial activities in India so far. MNCs went HEAD OVER HEELS in their zest and pursuit to once again purloin the GOLDEN SPARROW as India has been well known in earlier times.

5.

Given an opportunity MNCs took to false and misleading advertising to entice, fleece and dupe the gullible customers here in India and instant is a case in hand of the abuse of the said malpractice at the hands of the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties MNCs in automobile sector are at the epitome and a glaring example of the said malaise and the ones resorting to the UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICEs to con and rip-off their customers such as the complainant and his class by all foul means and more so by deceptive advertising. It is the requirement of the day for law and its enforcement against misleading advertisements the deluge whereof continues to haunt consumers like the complainant and his class.

6.

An advertisement is misleading if it deceives or is likely to deceive those to whom it is addressed and as a result is likely to affect their economic behaviour or is likely to injure a competitor of the advertiser. An advertisement can be deceptive in various ways including where it contains a false statement of fact to conceal or leave out important facts to imply a promise to do something but there is no intention of carrying out the same, or to create a false impression, even if everything stated in it

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~3~

may be literally true. An advertisement will affect economic behaviour (or injure a competitor) if, for example, it induces people to make purchases they would not otherwise have done or even thought of. But economic behaviour can cover any activity that involves spending money. 7. According to the consumer complaints council of the self-regulatory organisation of the advertising industry, there has been a significant rise in the number of advertisements being recognised as misleading or false or not adequately or scientifically substantiated in the first four months of 2013. Instant case is a manifestation of how the Opposite Parties, an unscrupulous company in automobile sector and a group company of a famous MNC, both world famous marque in their own right, are out to dupe/fleece gullible by false, misleading and deceptive advertisements. 8. Laws against misleading advertising and labelling prohibit and bar making any deceptive representations for the purpose of promoting a product or a business interest and encourage the provision of sufficient information to allow consumers to make informed choices and purchases. 9. From amongst the various auto sector frauds is the unlawful practice of misleading, false and deceptive advertising for vehicle pricing and financing. Prominent amongst these is the Bait and Switch, a form of false and deceptive advertising where vehicle is offered at an enticing discounted price which is never intended to be honoured. It is to lure and entrap. Frauds occur at any stage of the purchasing process.

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~4~

10. Instant a case of an auto dealer fraud by false advertising is by a company of world repute being AUDI. Incidentally Opposite Parties # 1 & 2 are now group concerns of a conglomerate and yet another well reputed marque VOLKSWAGEN. This conglomerate being the world famous VOLKSWAGEN GROUP in addition to its own brand and the one of Opposite Parties # 1 & 2 i.e. AUDI now also owns and holds in the passenger car segment some of the other worlds most famous brands/marques viz. Bugatti, Bentley, Porsche, Lamborghini, Skoda and Seat. For its forays in other segments it holds DUCATI a famous marque in motorcycles and in the segment of commercial vehicles the well-known brands of MAN and SCANIA. The bounty and largesse from its automobile business enabled it to even diversify and venture into other forays like the financial services. Group caters to the high end and premium category in automobiles across globe. 11. Complainant, an Indian national, is a consumer. 12. Complaint is also for and on behalf of complainants friends and relations who also made up their mind to accept the offer as also all others similarly situated and all being the OBLIGEES for the promotional offer under the ADVERTISEMENT dated 18-Mar-13, published from Delhi, of Opposite Parties, enclosed and Marked as Annexure-P/1. 13. While Opposite Parties # 1 & 2 are part of the same group and affiliates, Opposite Parties # 3 & 4 are their constituents/agents and are the obligators as well for the ADVERTISEMENT in question.

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~5~

14. Opposite Parties # 3 & 4 acted as agents of Opposite Parties # 1 & 2 and at all times mentioned as acting within the scope/ambit and course of their said agency with full knowledge, permission and consent of the other Opposite Parties and entrusted with the execution of the promotional offer for the sale of AUDI-Q3, vide Annexure-P/1. 15. In todays depressed economic scenario shouldnt companies be lowering their prices and running sales and promotional offers to boost their business and flow of money coming into their stores? People review their purchases 24X7 trying to budget and let their hard earned resources stretch as far as it could go. Machiavellian and unscrupulous companies are using underhand tactics to get patrons in the door and instant a case of a recent pervasive false advertisement and representation disseminated by the Opposite Parties for the sale of one of its premium class vehicles, an expensive and classy SUV within a short period of two days. 16. Lately in March this year Opposite Parties offered top DIESEL variant of Audi Q3, a hot selling SUV from its stable, as a promotional offer at a discounted price. Opposite Parties got the advertisement Annexure-P/1, for the enticing offer, published in prominent dailies circulating in Delhi. Indisputably Delhi NCR records the highest volumes/sales in passenger vehicle and is the most promising market and focus of automobile industry in country. 17. Aforesaid offer being for an extremely short duration of only two days complainant promptly posted a message, appending the copy of the

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~6~

instrument for tender of down payment of Rs.5 lakhs as asked for, to accept this alluring and tempting offer. Complainant by his mails dated 18-Mar-13 and 19-Mar-13 invited Opposite Parties for the needful to effectuate and execute the order. Time being short complainant even sought bank a/c number of Opposite Parties to deposit the cheque for down payment in the account of Opposite Parties on his own, unless Opposite Parties desired and opted to get it collected. Emails individually to each of the Opposite Parties # 3 & 4 are Annexures-P/2 & P/3, respectively. Copy of the cheque dated 19-Mar-13 for the down payment is Annexures-P/4. 18. Pursuant to aforesaid mails of the complainant, for the acceptance of offer and tender of down payment by the complainant, even though there was call back but Opposite Parties were anything but true and willing to honour and sell the SUV to complainant at their advertised price/offer. 19. Offers tenure being exceptionally short Opposite Parties wasted invaluable time to lapse the said offer to later quote higher price on 6Apr-13, about one and a half times to the advertised offered, to sell the SUV to complainant. Even though the complainants driving license was called for by Opposite Party # 3 on 12-Apr-13, Opposite Party # 3 took a turnaround and this reversal of the Opposite Party # 3 was anything but bonafide, honest and business-like. Complainant stood disheartened and dispirited by this U-turn/denial of Opposite

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~7~

Party # 3. Emails dated 6-Apr-13 & 12-Apr-13 of Opposite Party # 3are Annexures-P/5 & P/6, respectively. 20. Opposite Party # 3in its efforts to sell the vehicle to complainant, sought meeting with him, vide email dated 18-Apr-13, which took place on 23-Apr-13. Meeting failed since Opposite Party # 3 insisted on price already quoted in its invoice earlier. Email dated 18Apr-12 and copy of the invoice for the inflated price of Opposite Party # 3 are Annexures-P/7 & P/8, respectively. 21. Similarly even Opposite Party # 4 quoted a higher price and denied to supply the subject SUV offered and opted for by the complainant at the price vide the promotional offer of Opposite Parties. Price list for all AUDI-Q3 variants and copy of business card of Opposite Party # 4 are together Annexures-P/9. 22. Foreseeing complainant a promising customer Opposite Party # 3 continues to chase him still to sell the advertised SUV. Recent email dated 19-Aug-13 for the same is enclosed as Annexures-P/10. 23. On refusal of Opposite Parties to sell/supply the car in question, complainant suffered immensely for being deprived of the prized acquisition for him in life. Opposite Parties are to be held liable to the bargain as offered in the ADVERTISEMENT and to avail it complainant is holding funds for down payment in his account till date. Balance confirmation from bank to the effect is Annexures-P/11.

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~8~

24. Opposite Parties are thus guilty of adopting an UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE for the purpose of promoting sale of one of their products by publishing a false, misleading and deceptive advertisement in prominent daily papers, widely circulated in Delhi, offering top end diesel variant of its SUV an AUDI-Q3 at a bargain and all told on road price of Rs.29 lakhs. The price stated in the advertisement of Opposite Parties was indeed enticing and tempting enough to avail. It was moreover not only a grab/steal in reference to the ordinary price of the said SUV itself but also the ones from the other competitive marques/ brands viz. Mercedes, BMW, Volvo and pitted against it in the same range, bracket & identical specs. The Opposite Parties issued advertisement dated 18-Mar-13 with intent not to sell the car. 25. Additionally, Opposite Parties even played dirty and foul by their aforesaid advertisement for deliberately and purposely restricting their offer to an exceptionally short period/duration of just two days and the said period/duration, having regard to the nature of the product and the size and expanse of the business and the market, was utmost insufficient and unreasonable. This was a ploy to enable the Opposite Parties adopt a common malpractice of BAIT and SWITCH to force upon the sale of another high priced product/vehicle to prospective customers. 26. It is common knowledge that fleecing of gullible affords opportunity to these unscrupulous MNC auto companies, for an unjust enrichment.

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~9~

Opposite Parties intentions are anything but fair, honest and truthful. It is all the more against the concept and precept of CONSUMERISM. 27. The Consumer Protection Act forbids unfair and deceptive acts or practices including any use of deception, fraud, false pretence, false promise, misrepresentation or suppression of pretence. Conduct of Opposite Parties in issuing the advertisement and not honouring the promises made therein, especially when, the complainant and the similarly situated class of the consumers had relied thereon constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. 28. Opposite Parties neglecting and failing to sell/supply the car, in deference to their advertisement are to begin with liable to supply/sell the SUV aforesaid to complainant at the advertised all told on road price of Rs.29 lakhs, as accepted by the complainant. Advertised offer was nothing but a farce for mileage in sales and business. Advertisement for offer of Opposite Parties though being a farce still enabled them to get increased sales and their cash registers ringing during the economic downtrend and depressed times to the detriment of the complainant. 29. Opposite Parties refusal had an adverse and damaging effect on the physical and mental health of complainant. Complainant lost focus and concentration in life and more so on work. Opposite Parties denial of his dreamed acquisition was indeed hard to endure and fathom for him. Complainant was crestfallen on this denial and been disoriented all this while. Agony/tension to complainant manifests and is apparent for it took

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~ 10 ~

him long even to draw and file this complaint. Complainant claims Rs.250 lakhs each from Opposite Parties # 1 & 2 being the parent, principal manufacturer company and Rs.25 lakhs each from Opposite Parties # 3 & 4, as the agent/dealers of the former two Opposite Parties. Claim to the account of loss and sufferance to complainant against all the Opposite Parties is Rs.5.50 crores. 30. Opposite Parties unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business conduct, acts and practices, as stated in this complaint, include but are not limited to falsely advertising the bargain/offer and failing to disclose the due and necessary information thereto. This fraud and negligent misrepresentation not only results in liability in individual causes of action but also provides a basis for a finding in rem. Complainant and the class members and each of them stand harmed and damaged by the said malpractice(s) of the Opposite Parties. Disseminated advertisement was aimed at inducing and luring customers to purchase the subject vehicle/SUV for unjust enrichment of the Opposite Parties. 31. Complainant and the class and each of them stand damaged by the same. Members of the class all of whom opted for the purchase are in their own right the individual consumers. Misconduct of the Opposite Parties materially affected their purchasing decision. Opposite Parties failure to respond within the period/tenure of the offer results in irreparable sufferance and damage to the complainant and its class and renders all the Opposite Parties liable and accountable for the same.

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~ 11 ~

The advertisement issued is misleading, defective and constitutes improper BAIT ADVERTISING. In all fairness such a conduct on the part of the Opposite Parties is liable to be decreed. 32. Adoption and practice of deceptive, false and misleading advertising, being an UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE of Opposite Parties, is even a foul at large, call for accountability and commensurate liability towards the STATE and PUBLIC in general. Opposite Parties is the only one in the trade to record growth in its sales in the relevant period. 33. Complainant and class members justifiably relied upon misrepresentation of Opposite Parties and stand damaged thereby. Complainant for self and on behalf of class members seeks judgement against Opposite Parties. 34. Opposite Parties liability to the STATE and PUBLIC at large for their actions needs to be suitably determined and assessed. The compensation in the regards is tentatively being adjudged at its minimum at Rs.100 crores with liberty to the Honble forum, to finally assess and determine the same and if deemed so proper and necessary to even suitably enhance it further. Besides Opposite Parties actions being even against the advertising code in India renders them liable for an action thereunder as well. Hence the complaint. 35. Opposite Parties activities being in the nature of trade and commerce and in the course of their businesses and even so for being financers in their own right renders Opposite Parties even liable for

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~ 12 ~

interest upon the amounts claimed herein and as may be awarded finally. Though financing is currently at much higher rate but claim herein is being restricted to mere simple interest @ 12% per annum. 36. Cause of action for the complaint took place lately in the month of March, 2013. It being recent in 2013 itself complaint is within time. 37. Parties having their respective place of residence and business as also the advertisement of Opposite Parties being at Delhi, within country, vests jurisdiction to this Honble forum to entertain the present complaint. 38. Jurisdictional value for the complaint is as below; i. ii. iii. iv. Value of the vehicle in complaint Compensation ag. OPs # 1 & 2 @ 250 lakhs each Compensation ag. OPs # 3 & 4 @ 25 lakhs each Compensation ag. THE STATE & PUBLIC Rs. 29 lakhs. Rs. 5 crore. Rs. 50 lakhs. Rs. 100 crore.

39. Complainant humbly prays for the following reliefs; i. To accept this as a class action complaint appointing and treating this complainant representing the said class. ii. 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 Rs.29 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/1.

Complaint u/s 21 of the CP Act in

Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & 3 ors.

~ 13 ~

iii. 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. iv. 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. v. To refer the case to authority regulating and controlling false, deceptive and misleading advertising in India. vi. Towards the costs of litigation and related expenses Rs.,100,000. vii. Such other alternate relief, costs and/or damages as the Honble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Rajeshwar Tyagi (In Person) 1-C, Flagstaff Road, Delhi-54. Delhi. Dated: 19-Aug-13. Settled By: Mr. Ashok Grover (Senior Advocate). The Complainant.

Before the National Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission: INA: New Delhi. In Re.: C.C. # 260 of 2013. Vs. Audi India & 3 ors. Opposite Parties.

Rajeshwar Tyagi Complainant.

Affidavit of Rajeshwar @ Rajesh Tyagi, Adv. s/o late Sh. H.S. Tiagi, Advocate r/o The Shashwat, 1-C, Flagstaff Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110 054, aged about 65 yrs. On SA. Sir, Affiant states as under:1. Affiant being the complainant is in the know of facts to the case and submits this affidavit in support of his case on its merits. 2. Affiant files the accompanying complaint u/s 21(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act against UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE of Opposite Parties in adopting false, deceptive and misleading advertisements to sell their products a vehicle being a SUV, the highline diesel variant of their model an AUDI Q3 on an all told on road price of Rs.29 lakhs with down payment of Rs.5 lakhs and balance of Rs.24 lakhs in 36 monthly equated instalments. Opposite Parties declined to accept the order of the affiant for the same and thus did not honour the said offer. Opposite Parties adopted the malpractice of BAIT and SWITCH a price higher than the price offered in their advertisement. Complaint is true on facts and its contents not repeated here for brevity. Delhi. Dated: 19-Aug-13. Verification. Verified at Delhi on this 19th day of August 2013 that the contents of the paras of the above affidavit are true and correct to the knowledge of the affiant. Affiant.

Affiant.

Before the National Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission: INA: New Delhi. In Re.: C.C. # 260 of 2013. Vs. Audi India & 3 ors. Opposite Parties.

Rajeshwar Tyagi Complainant.

Memo of Parties Rajeshwar @ Rajesh Tyagi s/o late Sh. H. S. Tiagi, Advocate. Residing at: The Shashwat
1-C, Flagstaff Road (off 24, Shamnath Mg.)

Civil Lines, Delhi-110 054. Versus. 1. Audi India (Proprietorship/Group concern/Division of) Volkswagen Group Sales (I) P. Ltd. 3, Avenue, Level # 3/4, Maker Maxcity Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. Audi Finance (Proprietorship of) Volkswagen Finance P. Ltd. 3rd Floor, Wing-A, Silver Utopia, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400 099. Audi Delhi West A-21, Naraina Vihar New Delhi - 110 028. And, 4. Audi Delhi South B1/H1, Mohan Coop. Ind. Area Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044.

Complainant.

2.

3.

Opposite Parties.

Rajeshwar Tyagi (In Person) 1-C, Flagstaff Road, Delhi-54. Delhi. Dated: 19-Aug-13. The Complainant.

Before the National Consumer Disputes Rederssal Commission: INA: New Delhi. In Re.: C.C. # 260 of 2013. Vs. Audi India & 3 ors. Opposite Parties.

Rajeshwar Tyagi Complainant.

Index of Papers S# 1. 2. 3. Particulars of Documents Pages. 1 2 3 - 15 16 17 18 - 20 21 - 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Date sheet/Chronology of Events Memo of Parties Complaint u/s 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act.

4. Supporting affidavit 5. Annexure-P/1: Copy of OPs advertisement dt.18-Mar-13 6. Annexure-P/2: Emails dt. 18th/19-Mar-13 to OP # 3 7. Annexure-P/3: Emails dt. 18th/19-Mar-13 to OP # 4 8. Annexure-P/4: Copy of cheque of Rs.5 lakhs for down payment 9. Annexure-P/5: Email dt. 6-Apr-13 of OP # 3 for invoice 10. Annexure-P/6: Email dt. 12-Apr-13 of OP # 3 for D. Licence 11. Annexure-P/7: Email dt. 18-Apr-13 of OP # 3 for meeting 12. Annexure-P/8: Copy of invoice of OP # 3 13. Annexure-P/9: Price list and business card of OP # 4 14. Annexure-P/10: Email dt. 19-Aug-13 of OP # 3 for meeting 15. Annexure-P/11: Balance confirmation of complainants bank

Rajeshwar Tyagi (In Person) 1-C, Flagstaff Road, Delhi-54. Delhi. Dated: 19-Aug-13. The Complainant.

Date Sheet/Chronology of Events In Re.: Rajeshwar Tyagi Vs. Audi India & ors. Date Particulars of the Events

18-Mar-13 Advertisement of OPs offering AUDI-Q3 at bargain price 18-Mar-13 EMails at 2.11 pm to OP # 3 & 4 for acceptance of the offer 18-Mar-13 EMails at 2.47 pm to OP # 3, at 2.50 pm to OP # 4 for corrections 19-Mar-13 EMails at 9.54 & 9.56 am to OP # 4 & 3 for invoice & bank detail 19-Mar-13 EMail at 4.19 pm to OP # 3 to tender Rs.5 lakhs as down payment 19-Mar-13 Email at 4.22 pm to OP # 4 for tender of down payment. 19-Mar-13 EMail at 6.50 pm to OP # 3 and to confirm call of OP # 3. 20-Mar-13 Call from OP # 4 refusing to honour the offer as per the AD 6-Apr-13 Email from OP # 3 at 5.41 pm to submit Performa Invoice.

12-Apr-13 Email of OP # 3 at 5.41 pm to seek copy of DL for test ride 12-Apr-13 Email of complainant at 7.48 pm to mail DL. 18-Apr-13 Email of complainant at 4.33 pm to accord appointment 18-Apr-13 Email of OP # 3 at 6.30 pm to confirm the appointment 23-Apr-13 Meeting held and supply in terms of offer refused. 19-Aug-13 Email from OP # 3 for the present colour options of AUDI-Q3

The Complainant. 19-Aug-13.