[adithya.kp]

Trident's stockyard is in nelamangala which is far away from the city. (I know this for Hyundai. I guess they use the same for Renault too) From there, they transport to showrooms by trucks. So in my opinion, some handling charge may be ok. ( Although one could argue, ex showroom price should factor everything in)

In general, Trident sales is good. But I agree that 11k is a bit too much. I am actually surprised why they are so adamant on this. They have only 3 products in the portfolio and the car under question hardly sells. Could there be some other type of expense in this handling charge?. The trident guy was willing to negotiate on the other things, but not this. Looks very strange to me.

[livetodrive]

Originally Posted by krishnaprasadgg

OP, just walk away from this deal. Not worth the headache. You have already got the answer from them that they are not willing to drop the charges why deal with them at all.

What you(and all of us) can do is make sure this thread reaches far and loud. Mr.Samir is not going to lose his sleep over one customer not buying from him, but in the current day where customers are being smart enough to do some digging on a certain dealership(before buying from them) this thread will be sure to come up and they are at their discretion to decide on the showroom and might change his/her mind.

Yes. I am done with Renault. Duster is not the last car for me, nor am I the last customer for Trident. They have been giving this attitude since day 1, if you want to book, pay us our hafta, else you are free to walk off. Doesn't matter what they name it. Something which is illegal and doesn't have a tax receipt is nothing less than hafta.
I also have multiple court verdicts where the judgement is in favor of the customer and the dealer has been asked to compensate But no point proving it to a company who only defense is they are 'ethical' while defending an unethical act.. Irony!

Am sure something better awaits us. At least we both can go to sleep peacefully that we did not pay an illegal charge to own something I liked. The sense of satisfaction is enough

Thanks to everyone who took time to read, revert and give your valuable inputs. If possible share this thread as much possible, so that some prospective buyer somewhere will know what is he getting into.
Will keep you all posted when we have a new addition to our den

Till then keep rocking, Stay Home Stay Safe!

[GrammarNazi]

No matter what the Dealer says, bringing a car to a deliverable condition & location, is naturally the dealer's duty, and the dealer charging customers for Logistics feels like those cheap bakeries where they charge extra as "Cooling charges" for soft drinks.

If profit / commission from sales doesn't cover the costs, then raise the issue with the parent company & add it to the cars price. Simple.

Why make customers feel awkward for such an amount ?

[landcruiser123]

This thread has surely done more damage to Renault and Trident group than them reducing the price by INR 11k. My parents were debating Kwid and S-Presso, this thread has sealed the deal in favour of the S-Presso.

Time for the thread to hit the homepage.

Originally Posted by Samir Choudhry

Just to put this at rest once and for all ..

With all due respect sir, here's some advice:

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

This is a dealer vs Renault India issue to sort out the handling charges and work out a formula to bake it into the ex-showroom prices.

Please don't make the customer as scapegoat in this issue. Thanks.

[bharatbits]

Originally Posted by Samir Choudhry

Just to put this at rest once and for all ..

Delhi High Court order dated 20 April, 2012

I'd suggest read Point 9 of the Delhi High Court Order.
"9. The position which emerges is that while the petitioner avers that the ‘extras’ so charged by the dealers are for providing the services of registration and which the dealers are not entitled to charge, the dealers deny the extras to be on account of providing the services of registration and claim the same to be on other accounts. The respondents No.1&2 as aforesaid have no authority to intervene in the charge by the dealers even if illegal of the said extras so long as they are not on account of commission or for providing service of registration. The said question thus becomes a question of fact to be adjudicated on a case to case basis and no general direction with respect thereto can be issued in this public interest litigation."

It is ok to collect handling charges as long as the said charges are:
1. Not on account of commission or for providing service of registration
2. For providing any extras in terms of services, goods, fuel etc. to the purchasers and the purchasers agree to pay therefore, in the absence of any law to control the same, this Court cannot issue any direction with respect thereto.

Here in the case of Trident Renault nor are they providing any services, goods, fuel etc worth paying for in the name of handling charges nor has the purchaser agreed to pay for it.

Supreme Court Of India
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20/04/2012
in WP(C) No. 8408/2011 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New
Delhi)
C. RAJARAM & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GNCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and office report)
dated 5 January, 2017

Manish Kumar Goyal vs Dada Motors on 21 April, 2017 takes into consideration the Delhi High Court order which states that it has to be handled on a case to case basis. (Point 11) and orders the dealer to refund the handling charges with interest and litigation costs.

With all due respect, you and your staff have totally misconstrued the judgement and concluded it as a blanket authorization of any and all handling charges. I don't blame you for your ignorance and would like to think one of your staff has passed on incorrect understanding of the judgement order to you. Look forward to your instructions to your staff to rectify the error from the dealership's end.

[radiokidb]

Originally Posted by Samir Choudhry

The fact is , when any customer leaves a car for service , it is left at their risk and in the unfortunate case of a mishap , the customer has to make a claim through their respective insurance companies ( if you go for a surgery , you sign a liability waiver form )

We replaced the entire car and not a few damaged body parts because we felt that under the circumstances it was the right thing to do , at the cost of repeating myself I would once again like to say that Dealers are not cheats / rouges / out to make a quick buck , we try and run ethical businesses ( since I do know most of Dealers in Bangalore, I can say that with confidence )

Trident has sold close to 250,000 cars and I am sure we would not have reached here if our customers did not trust us.

As you are well aware, a simple disclaimer saying any chargeable service is at customer's risk has been struck down by multiple courts. If you are charging for a service, the risk is assumed solely by you. A mere disclaimer does not absolve you of it. Actually, it has been held that even in the case of "free" valet parking, the hotel/business is at fault in case of any damage/mishap.

The fact that you have tried to use the fact that a car that was damaged by you, was replaced by you, to portray yourself in a good light, tells me enough about your so called "ethics".

As the others have already stated and accepted by the OP, please do take your business elsewhere.

Originally Posted by bharatbits

Delhi High Court order dated 20 April, 2012

I'd suggest read Point 9 of the Delhi High Court Order.
"9. The position which emerges is that while the petitioner avers that the ‘extras’ so charged by the dealers are for providing the services of registration and which the dealers are not entitled to charge, the dealers deny the extras to be on account of providing the services of registration and claim the same to be on other accounts. The respondents No.1&2 as aforesaid have no authority to intervene in the charge by the dealers even if illegal of the said extras so long as they are not on account of commission or for providing service of registration. The said question thus becomes a question of fact to be adjudicated on a case to case basis and no general direction with respect thereto can be issued in this public interest litigation."

Thanks for stating the exact case. I knew he was trying to mislead us and Team BHP is definitely not the place you can try to pull the wool over our eyes! I think the ethics of the dealer are pretty clear for all to see.

[GBX]

Originally Posted by click

The way you have written this reads as if you did a favour on the customer by replacing the car for an accident that happened in your service center. That is not extra service but rather normal business practice

He did say in his post it was the right thing to do. Are we going to lambast him for making the best of it by turning it into a PR opportunity?

Are we also going to lambast say, airline companies for boasting of high on-time arrivals, by saying, that’s not extra service but expected of?

When brands don't even come clean on their country of origin, this kind of PR "spin" is the least harmful I've come across.

Originally Posted by click

Truth is that most dealers will inflate the quotation and only when customer digs and negotiates, will budge a little. You might call it the way to do business, we call it scrupulous intentions

I take it you've stopped shopping in general? Because this price hiking before discounts is common practice in e-commerce and brick and mortar "sales". Heck, just look at the discounts on ex-showroom offered by luxury brands!

Originally Posted by drmohitg

If he offers an additional discount to the OP equalling the handling charges, the OP would also accept. But this is not the case.

That's just having the cake and eating it, isn't it? If the dealer can't bear to part with the 10k margin, it's either going to show up in the handling charges or in another line item.

Concluding overall negotiations and then starting again when you see the breakup, is not going to go down well in any industry.

Originally Posted by livetodrive

Exactly. If it was a price fixed by the authorities or the manufacturer, I wont question.

I’ve never understood this.

End of the day, the dealer/service center is the one you’ll be frequenting over the years. The dealer is also the one who’s most connected to your local economy and culture. And the dealer likely isn't as "rich" as the manuf or the authorities.

And yet, we’re happy to question the dealer but not the others.

Originally Posted by asit.kulkarni93

It’s clear the Ex-showroom price includes the transportation charges too, I mean it’s “Ex-showroom” for a reason. That’s common sense and doesn’t need any rocket science.

This makes perfect sense and is worse for the customer, both at the same time.

Having the same ex-showroom price pan India implies that customer buying from dealers nearer to the factory are actually overpaying for their cars. Not that I would disagree with one common price, but it's a classic case of ignorance is bliss.

Originally Posted by radiokidb

A mere disclaimer does not absolve you of it. Actually, it has been held that even in the case of "free" valet parking, the hotel/business is at fault in case of any damage/mishap.

Absolutely correct. I believe it has been extended to Malls as well.

Originally Posted by radiokidb

I knew he was trying to mislead us and Team BHP is definitely not the place you can try to pull the wool over our eyes!

Not sure if we read the same summary by bharatbits. The court has wiped its hands of this matter and left it to the dealer and customer to handle this "case by case".

I.e. customer has to use all their bargaining tactics to get this waived off. Just saying it's "illegal", won't fly.

[bharatbits]

Originally Posted by GBX

Not sure if we read the same summary by bharatbits. The court has wiped its hands of this matter and left it to the dealer and customer to handle this "case by case".

I.e. customer has to use all their bargaining tactics to get this waived off. Just saying it's "illegal", won't fly.

If you go through the case details carefully you will realize the case in the Delhi High Court was a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Petitioners seeking a order by the court to curb dealerships from coercing the purchasers to pay amounts over and above the registration charges.

There was no particular 'aggrieved party' or a 'dealership' in the said petition. The court ruled that they cannot pass a order to completely ban the extra charges and hence has to be handled on a case to case basis.

The court states it is ok to collect handling charges as long as the said charges are:
1. Not on account of commission or for providing service of registration
2. For providing any extras in terms of services, goods, fuel etc. to the purchasers and the purchasers agree to pay
therefore, in the absence of any law to control the same, this Court cannot issue any direction with respect thereto.

Any charges beyond the scope of the above 2 points is illegal and the customer is not bound to pay. Hence, the court stated it has to be handled on a case by case basis to assess if it falls within the above 2 points or outside them.

Here in the case of Trident Renault, in the name of handling charges neither are they providing any services, goods, fuel etc worth paying for nor has the purchaser agreed to pay for it.

Originally Posted by GBX

The court has wiped its hands of this matter and left it to the dealer and customer to handle this "case by case".
I.e. customer has to use all their bargaining tactics to get this waived off. Just saying it's "illegal", won't fly.

The courts have not wiped their hands off this matter and the customer need not use all his bargaining tactics. It's clear on which 'extra' charges by the dealer are legal and which are not. Same can be seen in numerous cases in many states one of which is the case below.

Manish Kumar Goyal vs Dada Motors on 21 April, 2017 takes into consideration the Delhi High Court order which states that it has to be handled on a case to case basis (Point 11) and orders the dealer to refund the handling charges with interest and litigation costs.

RTOs of some states have been proactive and issued orders against levying handling/ logistics charges. While RTOs in other states may not have have issued such orders, however, that did not stop aggrieved parties to approach the courts in their state and get rulings ordering the dealers to refund the handling charges with interest and litigation costs.

Hope that clarifies.

[WorkingGuru]

Dealers quoting case laws to justify extracting logistical charges doesn't bode well for a "brand". I'm sure Hyundai too knows the issue and IMO it's rather unbecoming of both the parties (brand+dealer) to cite themselves so very highly as a "brand" per se' and then resort to such tactics.

Dealers exist as they're specifically meant to smoothen the buying process (& TBH this very business format is meant to absolve car companies of liabilities from local issues). Else even Tissue paper can be sold directly from the manufacturer to the customer.

Putting up policies to the detriment of the customers interest is sad and indicates how much they can be relied upon. Indicates the desparate necessity for laws to protect car buyers

[Kottayamkaran]

I suggest you walk away from the deal. It's not worth the headache. There are plenty of options available out there in the market in your budget. Getting a new car is a joyful occasion and no one has to go through harrowing experiences while purchasing a car.

[Racer911]

Originally Posted by adithya.kp

Trident's stockyard is in nelamangala which is far away from the city. (I know this for Hyundai. I guess they use the same for Renault too) From there, they transport to showrooms by trucks. So in my opinion, some handling charge may be ok. ( Although one could argue, ex showroom price should factor everything in)

In general, Trident sales is good. But I agree that 11k is a bit too much. I am actually surprised why they are so adamant on this. They have only 3 products in the portfolio and the car under question hardly sells. Could there be some other type of expense in this handling charge?. The trident guy was willing to negotiate on the other things, but not this. Looks very strange to me.

That is precisely the issue here. The dealer, and I emphasize the dealer by their own choice of method of business have their stockyard far away from the point of sale. That is their choice. When a car manufacturer delivers cars, its not like the dealers have a compulsion to first get the cars delivered 40kms away in a stockyard, which is basically just open land in most cases, and then have them brought over to the shiny showroom in the city after a confirmed order. They can very well have the stockyard and showroom in the same or relatively closer locations. I know many dealers in my city that do. Now just because the dealership, to save money on capital investment, has purchased land or stockyard 40 kms away from the point of sale, for 2 reasons, first, buy a stockyard at dirt cheap prices, 2nd, improve their visibility and approachability by having a swanky showroom in the city, doesn't mean the customer should've to bear the charges of the car to be transported to the point of sale. That was a business decision of the dealer to save money and improve sales which has been achieved. But then beginning to charge separately to get the vehicle from stock yard to the point of sale is not justified.

If the point of sale is same extremely nearby as the stockyard, this double transportation exercise and cost will be avoided in the first place.

Renault, or any other car manufacturer delivers cars to the dealers at the dealers choice of pre determined stocking location. They don't force the dealers to have a separate stockyard in the far ends of hell and then involve another transportation exercise when the car is to be handed over to the customer.

In the end it's like this, the dealers, almost all brands, first started the practice of purchasing estate outside city limits to save cost as well as taxes which they did. Basically they've already saved the cost which they would've otherwise incurred had the stockyard been nearby. It's just, over a period of time, that saved investment cost is forgotten and the cost of transporting vehicle to customers in a shiny showroom starts pinching them which they start charging illegally and many unsuspecting or unware customers started paying which became a win win situation for all dealers.

[drmohitg]

Originally Posted by GBX

That's just having the cake and eating it, isn't it? If the dealer can't bear to part with the 10k margin, it's either going to show up in the handling charges or in another line item.

Concluding overall negotiations and then starting again when you see the breakup, is not going to go down well in any industry.

So you are saying that the dealer can offer a discount and then have items in the final invoice that are completely unaccounted for and illegal? Every negotiation is done on the basis of good faith among both parties. The dealer assumes that the customer will buy the car and the customer assumes that he will get the best deal and service. This is the basic gist of any car trade right?

In this case, the OP walks in and expresses interest in buying a car. The SA would have probably told him the OTR price and the discount that is on offer. After preliminary agreement among both parties, they move to a table to formally discuss the final offer and sign off the deal. This is when the OP noticed the handling charges and conveyed his unwillingness to pay these. Where is bad faith here? If at all it is on part of the dealer who is trying to squeeze in illegal charges within the final price. Until and unless the OP has signed off on the deal, given the booking amount and everything, till then your argument doesn't stand since the negotiation is still going on. And to be frank, even if the OP would have noticed the charges at the day of delivery and refused to take delivery citing same, he would still be within his rights to back off. There is no blame on the OP or car buyer in general in any of these scenarios.

The dealer here is giving you a false discount by offering a certain cash discount and on the other hand, very slyly, adding costs to your OTR price which are not legal. Now usually, almost all of us let them loot us willingly in terms of registration charges where the dealers add a decent margin to the actual cost, accessory charges which many a times are made compulsory by the dealer which again is illegal but most buyers ignore all these. Many further ignore the 2-3 times inflated insurance quotes. Even the OP in our case here choose to pay them 20k over and above the actual 35k for the insurance. Thats a cool 60% inflation right there. On top of it dealers try to scare customers into buying these inflated premiums by falsely claiming issues at time of an insurance claim if the buyers buys a policy outside. So pardon me for saying this, but the dealer is negotiating in bad faith all along. Saying that Amazon or some other company does it too, doesn't make it correct. We criticise anyone and everyone who indulges in this practice or fooling customers. Just go to the online shopping thread and you will see numerous such examples.

[Captain Slow]

Forgive me, I dont understand this at all! if the charges are justified then just ask the Parent compnay to Include this in the EXshowroom price of the car!

Increase the Ex-showroom price of the car by Rs - 11,000 - 15,000 and say this is the price? Why simply try and fool customers by adding small amounts here and there?

[click]

Originally Posted by GBX

He did say in his post it was the right thing to do. Are we going to lambast him for making the best of it by turning it into a PR opportunity?

Are we also going to lambast say, airline companies for boasting of high on-time arrivals, by saying, that’s not extra service but expected of?

When brands don't even come clean on their country of origin, this kind of PR "spin" is the least harmful I've come across.

I take it you've stopped shopping in general? Because this price hiking before discounts is common practice in e-commerce and brick and mortar "sales". Heck, just look at the discounts on ex-showroom offered by luxury brands!

Both your answers support my argument. Airlines shouldn't do it as well and hopefully people look beyond those PR campaigns. In this case, airlines are still competitive when it comes to pricing. And the airline you talk about is a budget airline. While the dealer is trying to make customer pay more for something that he shouldn't. Not apples to apples comparison.

Next point about luxury brand....yes that's exactly what I am saying as well... They leave no option but for the customer to think this is a inflated quotation and we need to negotiate every line item. The whole practice makes it difficult for anyone to trust dealers on face value.

[tilt]

For those here suggesting that the OP move away from Renault, Trident also sells Hyundai, Honda and Isuzu vehicles. OP would have to find a car where Trident does not have a monopoly in Bangalore.

Also, for those suggesting that the OP buy his Renault in Cochin or any other dealer outside Bangalore, he would still have to get his car serviced at Trident Bangalore; so he does not benefit in any way buying from outside Bangalore.

Cheers