F A D A Journal - November 2018

President’s Message

A Tepid Festive Season For
Auto Industry, But Hope Remains

“We have not seen
such a Dull Fes ve
season in the past 4-5
years.”

“With the Fes val
sales below
expecta on, the
current inventory
levels are a cause of
concern for all of us.”

6 F A D A Journal November 2018 | fada.in

“We need to work on
our internal systems
and work on cost
control so that
expenditures can be
curtailed.”

“Cau on needs to be “For the first me,
taken that in the F A D A will be doing
process of cost control, an event in Gujarat -
strictures should not Vyapar on the theme
be passed on costs “Together Towards
which directly Tomorrow”. The event
contribute to sales and will be held at
service produc vity.” Courtyard by Marrio ,
Ahmedabad.”







Industry Track
fada.in | November 2018 F A D A Journal 11



India Economics
fada.in | November 2018 F A D A Journal 13











Dealership Profitability
fada.in | November 2018 F A D A Journal 19



Perspective

NITS works with a growing roster of automotive clients, and can also service data-rich industries like healthcare, retail and higher
education, to transform information into intelligence by helping them navigate the intersection of big data, technology and marketing to
design and implement custom programs that put information into action—ultimately leading to more effective marketing, enhanced
operational efficiency and improved success.

fada.in | November 2018 F A D A Journal 21



REGISTRATION FORM

1. B ųwwwwwwwwwwwwvvwwvvwwwwwwwwvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwwvv Designation: …………………..…………………..

2. B ųwwwwwwwwwwwwvvwwvvwwwwwwwwvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwwvv Designation: …………………..…………………..

3. B ųwwwwwwwwwwwwvvwwvvwwwwwwwwvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwwvv Designation: …………………..…………………..

Registration Fee for: Automobile Dealer INR: 1,180 (Inclusive of GST per delegate)
Non-Automobile Dealer INR: 5,900 (Inclusive of GST per delegate)

Cheque/DD: Federation of Automobile Dealers Associations. Cheque/DD No. & Date ……....................………………
For Online Transfer/NEFT/RTGS - Bank Name: Yes Bank, Account Name: Federation of Automobile Dealers
Associations, Savings Bank Account No. 013694600000359, Branch: Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001, MICR
No. 110532031 and NEFT IFSC Code: YESB0000136.

UTR/Txn ID No. …………….................................… ………………………
Hotel Accommodation
Special rates of rooms held for outstation delegates in Hotel Courtyardby Marriott, Ahmedabad. The rate for
Single/Double Occupancy is Rs. 5,750. Applicable taxes extra. The tariff is including B’fast and WiFi.
Credit card details viz. Name, Card No., and Expiry Date require for holding reservations. Payment direct at Chec-kout.

Organisation’s Name: ……………………………..…………………………………….…………… GST No.: .……………………….……...………..

Address: …………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………..……………

Mobile No. : ……………………..…….………… Landline No.: .…..……………….…………E-Mail: ………………......……..…………….…………

fadaindia.org fadaindia FADA New Delhi FADA_India www.fada.in FADA India





















“Current fes ve season “For Cars and 2-
was a mixed bag for Wheeler businesses
us, as there was rising fuel cost,
growth over 25% in increasing interest
our commercial and rates and compulsion
construc on of 3rd party insurance
equipment business premium for 3 & 5
but the numbers in years is having a
cars and 2 Wheeler nega ve impact on the
dealerships remained industry.”
almost flat as
compared to last year.”

The Zero Hour

“Auto dealerships are
one of the highest tax
payers to the
government of India,
and there are over
25,000 dealerships in
India, employing more
than 5 million people.
Hence, there should be
a separate ministry in
the government that
would take care of the
policies related to the
auto retail industry. At
present, auto dealers
have to go to mul ple
windows to get the
clearance from the
various departments.”

“There is a huge rise in
the overall cost of the
dealership opera ons
in last 2-3 years.
OEMs should consider
the same and bring
dealer margins at par
with the dealer
margins of the western
countries.”

“With the
implementa on of
Vahan 4.0 by MoRTH,
the actual retail data
can be extracted from
the Vahan portal and
therefore industry
should move towards
market share
calcula on through
retails.”

fada.in | November 2018 F A D A Journal 35

Consumer Case

National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi

MR PREM NARAIN, Consumer protec on Act, 1986 - Sec on 21 - Revision – The vehicle of the Pe oner was injured
Presiding Member with the Opposite Party for Rs. 2,64,550 from 12.6.2005 to 11.6.2006 – Personal accident cover
for Rs. 2,00,000 was also there – On 15.7.2005 vehicle met with an accident – Complaint filed CC
Prabha Tyagi – No. 58 of 2010 seeking Rs. 1,00,000 towards personal accident cover – The said complaint was
Petitioner allowed by the district forum vide order dated 20.9.2010 – The Complainant filed another CC No.
243 of 2011 seeking balance of the personal accident cover and salvage value of the vehicle Rs.
Versus 1,17,000 district forum allowed this complaint vide its order dated 08.07.2013 and directed
insurance company to pay the total amount of Rs. 3,00,000 to the Complainant – State
National Insurance commission allowed the appeal of the insurance company vide its order dt. 07.12.2016 – Hence,
Company Ltd – the present Revision Pe on – Heard the counsel at the admission stage, perused the document
Respondents – It is, therefore, clear from the documents that the Complainant was required to include his
whole claim in the original complaint itself – There is no ground made out for filing another
Revision Petition No 568 complaint on the same cause of ac on for pursuing part of the claim, which he had le in the
of 2017 first complaint – Hence, there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdic onal error in the
order dt. 07.12.2016 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this
Decided on 18.09.2018 commission – Accordingly, Revision Pe on No. 568 of 2017 is dismissed at the admission stage.

(Against the Order dated Important Point - When there is no illegality, material irregularity of jurisdic onal error in the
07.12.2016 in Appeal No. order of the State Commission, intereference from this Commission cannot be sought.
215/2013 of the State
Commission Uttaranchal)

Prem Narain, Presiding 20.09.2010. Then Complainant Pe oner that the Personal
Member - This Revision filed CC No.243 of 2011 seeking Accident cover was for
Pe on has been filed by the balance of the personal Rs.2,00,000. The Pe oner was
Pe oner Prabha Tyagi against accident cover and salvage under a wrong impression that
the order dated 07.12.2016 of value of the vehicle Rs. the policy was for only
the State Consumer Disputes 1,17,000. District Forum Rs.1,00,000 and therefore, the
Redressal Commission, allowed the complaint vide its earlier complaint was filed only
U arkhand, (in short 'the State order dated 08.07.2013 and for Rs. 1,00,000. As per the
Commission') passed in First directed insurance company to policy, the Pe oner is en tled
Appeal No.215 of 2013. pay the total amount of Rs. to total amount of Rs. 2,00,000
3,00,000 to the Complainant. under the Personal Accident
2. Brief facts of the case are State Commission allowed the cover and therefore, the
that the vehicle of the appeal of the insurance present complaint was filed,
Pe oner was insured with the company vide its order dated which was allowed by the
Opposite Party for Rs. 2,64,550 07.12.2016. District Forum vide its order
from 12.6.2005 to 11.6.2006. dated 08.07.2013. However,
Personal accident cover for Rs. 3. H e n c e t h e p r e s e n t the State Commission has
2,00,000 was also there. On Revision Pe on. accepted the appeal of the
15.07.2005 vehicle met with an Insurance Company and
accident. Complainant filed CC 4. Heard the learned counsel disallowed complaint on the
No. 58 of 2010 seeking Rs. for the Pe oner at admission ground of construc ve res
1,00,000 towards personal stage. judicata and on the ground of
accident cover. The complaint limita on.
was allowed by the District 5. Learned counsel for the
Forum vide order dated Pe oner stated that earlier 6. It was further argued by
this fact was not known to the

36 F A D A Journal November 2018 | fada.in

Consumer Case

the learned counsel that res legal principles, we are of the consumer forum. In this Where the liability and
judicata will only operate when opinion that the High Court was regard, the learned counsel quantum of claim under a policy
the claim is same between the not correct in holding that the relied upon the following is established, the insurers shall
par es, whereas in the present second complaint was pronouncements:- not withhold claim amounts.
case, the claim is now for completely barred. It is se led However, it would be clearly
addi onal amount of law that there is no statutory (1) Ramdas Sales Corpora on understood that execu on of
Rs.1,00,000 as Rs.1,00,000 has bar in filing a second complaint Vs. New India Assurance such vouchers does not
already been paid by the on the same facts. In a case Company Ltd, III (2016) CPJ 40 foreclose the rights of policy
Insurance Company as per the where a previous complaint is (NC). It has been held that:- holder to seek higher
order dated 20.09.2010 of the dismissed without assigning compensa on before any
District Forum passed in earlier any reasons, the Magistrate "3. The learned counsel for the judicial fora or any other fora
complaint. To support his case under Sec. 204 Cr.P.C. may take Complainant has placed before established by law.
learned counsel referred to the cognizance of an offence and us a Circular No.IRDA/NL/CIR/
following judgements:- issue process if there is Misc/173/09/2015 dated All insurers are directed to
sufficient ground for 24.09.2015 issued by Insurance comply with the above
(1) Allahabad Development proceeding. As held in Regulatory Development instruc ons."
Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman & Pramatha Nath Taluqdar's case Authority of India (IRDA) to all
Ors., dated 02.09.1996 (supra) second complaint could the General Insurance (2) United India Insurance Vs.
(Supreme Court). It has been be dismissed a er a decision Companies, with regard to the Ajmer Singh Co on & General
held that: has been given against the use of discharge vouchers in Mills & Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10
Complainant in previous ma er se lement of claim. The said (SC). It has been held that:-
"In view of the above ra o, it is upon a full considera on of his circular reads as under:-
seen that when the Legislature case. Further, second complaint "The mere execu on of the
has directed to act in a on the same facts could be "The Insurance Companies are discharge voucher would not
par cular manner and the entertained only in excep onal using 'discharge voucher' or always deprive the consumer
failure to act results in a circumstances, namely, where "se lement in ma on from preferring claim with
consequence, the ques on is the previous order was passed voucher" or in some other respect to the deficiency in
whether the previous order on an incomplete record or on a name, so that the claim is service or consequen al
operates as res judicata or misunderstanding of the nature closed and does not remain benefits arising out of the
estoppel as against the persons of complaint or it was outstanding in their books. amount paid in default of the
in dispute. When the previous manifestly absurd, unjust or However, of late, the Authority service rendered. Despite
decision was found to be where new facts which could has been receiving complaints execu on of the discharge
erroneous on its face, this court not, with reasonable diligence, from aggrieved policyholders voucher, the consumer may be
held in the above judgment that have been brought on record in that the said instrument of in a posi on to sa sfy the
it does not operate as res the previous proceedings, have discharge voucher is being used Tribunal or the Commission
Judgment. We respec ully been adduced. In the facts and by the insurers in the judicial under the Act that such
follow the ra o therein. The circumstances of this case, the fora with the plea that the full discharge voucher or receipt
principle of estoppel or res ma er, therefore, should have and final discharge given by the had been obtained from him
Judgment does not apply where been remi ed back to the policyholders ex nguish their under the circumstances which
to give effect to them would be learned Magistrate for the rights to contest the claim can be termed as fraudulent or
to counter some statutory purpose of arriving at a finding before the Courts. exercise of undue influence or
direc on or prohibi on. A as to whether any case for by misrepresenta on or the
statutory direc on or cognizance of the alleged While the Authority notes that like. If in a given case the
prohibi on cannot be over- offence had been made out or the insurers need to keep their consumer sa sfies the
ridden or defeated by a not." books of accounts in order, it is authority under the Act that the
previous judgment between the also necessary to note that discharge voucher was
par es." 7. The learned counsel further insurer shall not use the obtained by fraud, mis-
argued that execu on of instrument of discharge representa on, under influence
(2) M a h e s h C h a n d Vs . B . discharge voucher for voucher as a means of estoppel or the like, coercive bargaining
Janardhan Reddy & Anr., se lement of earlier claim of against the aggrieved policy compelled by circumstances,
Appeal (crl.) 1276 of 2002, Rs. 1,00,000 does not debar the holders when such policy the authority before whom the
decided on 04.12.2002, (SC). It Complainant to pursue his holder approaches judicial complaint is made would be
has been held that:- remaining claim of Rs. 1,00,000 fora. jus fied in gran ng
in a court of law like the appropriate relief. However,
"Keeping in view the se led Accordingly insurers are hereby where such discharge voucher
advised as under:

fada.in | November 2018 F A D A Journal 37

Consumer Case

is proved to have been obtained was filed. The Complainant did applicable in the present case consumer forum, hence
under any of the suspicious not discover any new where the principle of res benefit of these judgments has
circumstances noted informa on under the RTI as judicata is applicable. already been drawn by
hereinabove, the Tribunal or the same contract of policy was Complainant. These
the Commission would be there right from the very 11. Last two judgments of this judgments do not throw any
jus fied in gran ng the beginning. Hence, the Commission and judgment of light on the aspect of second
appropriate relief under the conten on of the Pe oner Hon'ble Supreme Court complaint.
circumstances of each case. cannot be accepted. I agree Ramdas Sales Corpora on Vs.
The mere execu on of the with the finding of the State New India Assurance Company 12. Under Order II Rule 1 & 2
discharge voucher and Commission that the complaint Ltd. (supra) and United India of the Code of Civil Procedure,
acceptance of the insurance is me barred. Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh 1908 the following is provided:-
claim would not estopple Co on & General Mills & Ors.
insured from making further 10. So far as res judicata is (supra) are related to the "1. Frame of suit- Every suit
claim from the insurer but only concerned, it is clear that the discharge voucher and in these shall as far as prac cable be
under the circumstances as cause of ac on in the earlier judgments it has been held framed so as to afford ground
no ced earlier....................." complaint and the present that inspite of signing of the for final decision upon the
complaint is the same, which is discharge voucher the claim subjects in dispute and to
8. I have carefully considered rela ng to insurance claim for can be filed before a consumer prevent further li ga on
the arguments advanced by the the damage to the vehicle and forum. In the present case, concerning them.
learned counsel for the under the Personal Accident the ma er is related to the
Pe oner and have examined cover. The judgment of the second complaint on the same 2. Suit to include the whole
the material on record. First of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cause of ac on. These claim- (1) Every suit shall
all, the State Commission has Allahabad Development judgments do not throw any include the whole of the claim
clearly stated that the accident Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman & light in respect of second which the plain ff is en tled to
took place on 15.07.2005 and Ors.(supra) is related to change complaint filed before a make in respect of the cause of
the complaint has been filed on in law and any previous order consumer forum. The only ac on; but a plain ff may
11.08.2011. The State in respect of some dispu ng point that the Pe oner wants relinquish any por on of his
Commission has held that par es shall not operate as to substan ate through these claim in order to bring the suit
complaint is clearly barred by resjudicata against any two judgments is that he within the jurisdic on of any
limita on. During the statutory provisions or wants to object to the finding Court."
argument, the learned counsel prohibi ons. In the present of the State Commission that
did not argue on the point of case, there is no change in law the Pe oner does not have a 13. From the above, it is clear
limita on. However, in the as the policy was the same and case on merits as she has given that the Complainant was
Revision Pe on following the law was the same. a consent le er for accep ng required to include his whole
ground has been taken:- Therefore, this judgment is not the claim. First of all discharge claim in the original complaint
a racted towards the present voucher is a different thing itself. These rules are framed to
"16. For that the Hon'ble State case. So far as the judgment of than the consent le er and if prevent further li ga on
Commission failed to Hon'ble Supreme Court in the discharge voucher is between the same par es.
appreciate that the present Mahesh Chand Vs. B. Janardhan signed with consent le er Thus, no ground is made out for
complaint has been filed Re d d y & A n r. ( s u p ra ) i s then Pe oner needs to show filing another complaint on the
subsequent to the disposal of concerned, this is in respect of that the consent was obtained same cause of ac on for
earlier complaint No.58 of criminal ma er and the either by coercion and fraud or pursuing part of the claim,
2010, hence, the cause of ac on judgment of a criminal case is misrepresenta on or the like. which he had le in the first
is s ll con nuing and not barred not applicable in the ma er of No such ground has been complaint.
by limita on, which has been civil nature. Moreover, the taken by the Pe oner before
filed on subsequent cause of complaint in a criminal case is the State Commission. 14. B a s e d o n t h e a b o v e
ac on a er gathering filed under CrPC, whereas the Moreover, these judgments discussion, I do not find any
informa on under Right to present complaint is under the only authorize the insured to illegality, material irregularity
Informa on Act." Consumer Protec on Act, approach a judicial forum for or jurisdic onal error in the
1986. The nature of a criminal redressal of his grievance even order dated 07.12.2016 of the
9. The asser on that the complaint and a common if discharge voucher has been State Commission which calls
cause of ac on is con nuing complaint is totally different. executed. In the present case, for any interference from this
cause cannot be accepted as Thus, the observa ons in this the Complainant has already Commission. Accordingly,
the cause of ac on came to a judgment cannot be made availed the services of a the RP No.568 of 2017 is
close once the first complaint dismissed at the admission
stage.

38 F A D A Journal November 2018 | fada.in









Insight
fada.in | November 2018 F A D A Journal 43

Insight
44 F A D A Journal November 2018 | fada.in



One Nation | One Association

One Nation | One Association

Registration Form

1. B Passport): _______________________________________________

2. A ų ____
3. Ć B vЖÃ Â _ų______________________________________________________

4. DĊ Ď Ж Ď Â able):_________________________________________________

5. C ÃǼ Ă _____________________________________________________
Please attach copyof the Passport and US valid Visa (if available)

Signature: ______________________ Name: _____________________________________________

Dealership/Firm’s Name: _____________________________________________________________

Mobile No: ______________________________-ME ail: _________________________________ __

Note:

i) Č Ä Č. 5,900 per delegate(including GST) and has to be paid up front.

Registration Feeis non-refundable.

ii) Đ unique User ID will be providedto registeryourself directly with NADA as F A D A

Delegate,upon receipt of registration form and fee.

iii) Ç ЖĂ v

F A D A Savings Bank Account for online transfer the Registration Fee

ACCOUNT HOLDER NAME Federation of Automobile DealerAs ssociations
ACCOUNT NUMBER 013694600000359
BANK NAME YES BANK
BRANCH Connaught Place, New Delhi.
IFSC CODE YESB0000136

F A D A GSTIN #07AAATF0637Q1ZG

Please mail the UTR# & duly filled up registration form along with Passport copy to: [email protected]

fadaindia.org fadaindia FADA New Delhi FADA_India www.fada.in FADA India