Date of filing:- 22/07/2019.

Date of Order:-07/04/2021.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B  A  R  G  A  R  H

 Consumer Complaint No. 66 of 2019

            M/s Krishna Tanks Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, Ramesh Chandra Agrawal son of Munsiram Agrawal, aged about 54(fifty four) years, Near Industrial Estate, Railway Station Road Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh .                                .....                .....       .....         Complainant.

• V e r s u s -

1. Aditya Car Automotives Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 337, NH-5, rudrapur, Pahal, Bhubaneswar, Odisha-752101.
2. Honda Cars India Ltd., represented through its General Manager, Head Office at Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306.                            .....       .....       .....       Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                            :- Sri P.K.Acharya, Advocate with associate.

For the Opposite Party No.1(one)       :- Sri A.K.Knungo, Advocate with associate.

For the Opposite Party No.2(two)       :- Sri Deep Kedia, Advocate with associate.

                                                      -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra       .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Ajanta Subhadarsinee             .....        .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.07/04/2021.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-

            Brief facts of the case ;-

            The Complainant has filed the case against the Opposite Parties with an allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering him service as envisaged hereunder.

            The Complainant has purchased an Honda city 1.5 VX MT (1-DTEC) vehicle vide it’s Engine No.N15A16002906, Chassis No. MAKGM85PJHN300728 from the Highway Honda ,Bhubaneswar Show Room of the Opposite Party No.1(one) by paying an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only in advance on Dt.10.04.2019, being assured by him to supply the Complainant with the latest model of the year 2018 of the same and on the next day i.e. on Dt.11.04.2019 paid him the rest amount of Rs.12,87,128/-(Rupees twelve lakh eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty eight)only in the show room of the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide Cheque No.214863, 214868, 214869, 214870 as advance and towards the full and final amount respectively in different head such as for the value of the vehicle Rs.11,38,500/-(Rupees eleven lakh thirty eight thousand five hundred)only, for Tax Rs.12,385/-(Rupees twelve thousand three hundred eighty five)only and for Registration of the Vehicle in the office of the R.T.A. Rs.1,36,243/-(Rupees one lakh thirty six thousand two hundred forty three)only.

            And the said Vehicle was delivered to the Complainant at Bargarh without paper and on being asked the Opposite Party No.1(one) assured him to give the documents after the same being registered and subsequently the same vehicle was registered on Dt.16.04.2019 and by the end of April the said documents was supplied to him from which the Complainant found that the Vehicle was of not the Model of the year 2018 as has been assured by the Opposite Party No.1(one) but of the year 2017 whereby the Complainant got depressed and enquired from the Opposite Party No.1(one) but he did not respond and ignored his grievance as a result of which the Complainant sustained mental agony financial loss and also felt harassed, thus has filed the case before the Forum against the Opposite Parties claiming such acts of the Opposite Party No.1(one) as an act of unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service and as the Opposite Party No.2(two) is the manufacturer and the Opposite Party No.1(one) is his dealer so each of them is equally responsible for such of his acts hence has made him a party in the case claiming to replace the vehicle with a new model of 2018 and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh)only as compensation towards mental agony and financial and physical harassment. And in substantiating his case has relied on the following documents:-

1. Cheque No. 214868 Dt.11.04.2019.
2. Cheque No. 214863 Dt.10.04.2019.
3. Cheque No. 214870 Dt.11.04.2019.
4. Cheque No. 214869 Dt.11.04.2019.
5. Xerox copy of T.C.Book bearing No.OD-17-R-0500.
6. Sale certificate issued by Aditya Car Automotive.
7. Sale certificate issued by Aditya Car Automotive.
8. Insurance certificate issued by Aditya Car Automotive.
9. Computer generated slip.
10. Initial certificate of compliance with pollution.
11. Sale certificate issued by Aditya Car Automotive.
12. Vehicle Tax invoice.

            Having gone through the pleading and it’s accompanied documents and on hearing his Advocate the complaint was admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Parties and in response both of them appeared before the Forum through their Advocate and filed their individual version.

            The sum and substances of the rival contention of the Opposite Parties are denial to the case of the Complainant besides that also have challenged the case with a plea that the Forum lacks Jurisdiction both for pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, further more have denied the status of the Complainant for being a consumer with a reason stating therein that since he has not assigned any purpose for purchasing the vehicle in question as such cannot be treated to be a consumer and has relied on some citation of the Apex court, also objected the case with the status of the Complainant, further has raised a point since the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defect hence cannot be maintainable against the Opposite Party No.2(two) and beside those points of his objection has raised so many others denying the case of the Complainant. Further more in addition to his objection has categorically explained the responsibility of the Complainant to get his vehicle registered in the concern R.T.A. in his own but not by the Opposite Party.

            Further with regard to the averment made in the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is also a denial one with the averment that there is no case of unfair trade practice nor deficiencies of service on their part because the Complainant has himself preferred to take the vehicle in question on his own having being impressed with the offer of cash discount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only and also on his request the Authorities of the Company i.e the Opposite Party No.2(two) allowed him with a further discount of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only on the vehicle irrespective of the year of manufacturing of the same so availing the said discount he was supplied with the vehicle and has relied on Annexures A/1, B/1 and C/1 in support of his such pleas and also relied on some money receipt bearing Serial No.583, 584 and 586 and the Tax Invoice No.2018/2019-527 Dt.11.04.2019 vide E/1 series and F/1 series to prove his case, and further has claimed in his version that the Complainant opted to insure the vehicle at his own accordingly did not pay the amount to the Opposite Party No.1(one), and in view of his such averment has denied to have been deficient in rendering service or to have caused unfair trade practice on his part and has prayed before the Forum to dismiss the case. And in addition to the averments made by the Opposite Parties in their respective version have also filed lengthy notes of arguments in their support relying on Annexure A/1 to H/1 series of documents compiling the episode of the deal.

            Later on the Advocate for the Complainant has also filed a bunch of documents relating to the Tax with regard to the purchase of the vehicle and tax paid thereto.

            With much vigilance perused the pleadings of the Parties and their documents filed in their support and on hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties. We are of the view that the following issues are to be adjudicated for proper appreciation of the case i.e.

1. Whether the case is maintainable before the Honorable Forum, and whether the Complainant is a consumer or not ?
2. Whether the Opposite Parties have committed unfair trade practice and are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant  ?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief  ?

            While adjudicating the answering issue as to whether the case is maintainable before the Forum, having gone through the materials available in the record it is found that the Complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from the Opposite Party No.1(one) from his show Room by paying the price of the same worth of Rs. 13,87,127/-(Rupees thirteen lakh eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty seven)only in total, and with regard to the averment made by the Opposite Party it is observed that the same vehicle in question has been delivered to the Complainant in his home address at Bargarh. So the part of cause of action in filing the case has arosed within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Forum and with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction it involves an amount of Rs.13,87,127/-(Rupees thirteen lakh eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty seven)only which is very much within the jurisdiction of the Forum as such the averment made by the Opposite Party No.1(one) with regard to the question as it lacks pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction is out rightly rejected and answered in favor of the Complainant.

            Further it is clearly observed that admittedly the Vehicle has been purchased by the Complainant but the purpose for such has not been assigned, in this context we would like to refer the definition of the term consumer at it’s verbatim as envisaged in the Act u/s 2(1)d “Consumer means a person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or partly paid or promised to pay or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person” and while referring the same it makes clear that the Complainant has purchased the Vehicle in the capacity of a Director of M/s Krishna Tanks Pvt Ltd duely being entrusted with the same status and by paying the required amount of value of the same beside that it is obvious upon a person if any body purchase any goods with some consideration amount for any commercial purpose then only it requires to mention the said purpose but here in this case the Complainant has purchased the vehicle fulfilling the required condition for being a consumer as envisaged in the Act  U/s 2(1) d as narrated above without any ambiguity with the same and as such we did not feel it necessary to refer any citation referred by the Opposite Party as such it is answered in assertive, in favor of the Complainant.

            Secondly while scrutinizing the available materials available in the record with regard to the issue as to whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiencies of service on the part off the Opposite Parties, it has come to our Notice that there are several discrepancies in the versions with the documents filed by the Opposite Parties, i.e. the Opposite Parties have claimed in their respective version that an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand)only was offered as cash discount to the Complainant and on his request further amount of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees seventy five thousand)only was also given to him as special discount as a special gesture but it clearly reveals from the Vehicle Tax invoice issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) that only amount of Rs.68,966/-(Rupees sixty eight thousand nine hundred sixty six)only has been given to him as promotional discount which implies that such a discount is usually given to every customer time to time as a promotional discount but not as a special discount given to him on the contrary it proves the averment made by the Complainant from the cheque vide No.214863 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only issued by him in favor of the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.10.04.2019 that he has paid such an amount as advance being assured by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to supply him with a model of the Vehicle of 2018, defying the averments made by the Opposite Party No.1(one) in paragraphs No.12(twelve), e, sub para f, in his version, it also reveals from the material available in the record that an amount of Rs.1,36,243/-(Rupees one lakh thirty six thousand two hundred forty three)only has been paid to the Opposite Party No.1(one) by the Complainant vide his Cheque No. 214870 Dt. 11.04.2019 to get his vehicle registered but it is clearly evident that an amount of Rs.1,33,800/-(Rupees one lakh thirty three thousand eight hundred)only has been paid in the Office of the R.T.A. towards Tax and there is no explanation from the side of the Opposite Party No.1(one) with regard to the rest amount of money amounting to Rs.2,443/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred forty three)only.

            In furtherance to our observation it is found that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has claimed in his version with a reference to the Insurance of the vehicle concerned wherein the said model of the vehicle has been mentioned as of 2019 mfg in this context having gone through the entire episode of sale and purchase of the vehicle the Registration of the vehicle has been carried out by the Opposite Party No.1(one) which has been admitted by him and the insurance part of the vehicle was carried out by the Complainant but it creates a confusion in our mind that how come the registration of the vehicle could be done in the event of the same being insured with manufacturing date of the vehicle as the year 2019. So in our view while the process of registration of the vehicle was on, it was the duty of Opposite Party No.1(one) to look after the same as he being entrusted with the same but has been proved to have been overlooked by him, which amounts to an act of deficiencies on his part.

            Furthermore with regard to the payment of Tax against the Vehicle concerned the documents filed by the Complainant i.e. the statement of the Opposite Party No.1(one) submitted by him party before the tax Authority of the Government which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.12,385/-(Rupees twelve thousand  three hundred eighty five)only has been paid by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.31.03.2019 against the transaction with regard to the Vehicle vide Invoice No. 527/2018-2019 towards the total invoice value of Rs.12,38,499/- (Rupees twelve lakh thirty eight thousand four hundred ninety nine)only i.e. the value of the Vehicle in question although the same was paid by the Complainant on Dt.11.04.2019 to the Opposite Party No.1(one) by cheque, which shows the fabrication of the documents by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to manipulate it’s transaction in an ulterior motive, which is nothing but an act of unfair trade practice,  And beside that the Complainant although has tried to draw the attention of the Opposite Party No.2(two) with regard to the aforesaid episode he did not pay any heed to it, in view of such facts and circumstances our conscious and consensus view is expressed against the Opposite Parties with an opinion that the Opposite Party No.1(one) being the Authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.2(two), he should have a vigilant view in the business activities of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and should take care of his reputation and should redress the grievance of it’s customer if anything comes to it’s knowledge but he has not acted upon accordingly in this case, for which of their such activities both of them are jointly and severally liable.

            And so far as the claim of the Complainant as we have already discussed at length in connection with all the materials available in the record before us and have already opined against both the Opposite Parties, now we don’t have any other option but express our view thus the Complainant is entitled to the claim made by him accordingly our consensus view is expressed in favor of him. Accordingly our order follows:-

O  R  D  E  R

            Hence in view of our opinion expressed in our foregoing paragraphs, the Opposite Parties are directed to replace the Vehicle i.e. City 1.5.VX MT (1-DTEC) of the same make and model of 2018 and in the alternative if the same is not available then are directed to refund the total value of the vehicle amounting to Rs.13,87,127/-(Rupees thirteen lakh eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty seven)only with an interest @ 6%(six percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case within thirty days of receipt of the Order to the Complainant and also are further directed to pay amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as compensation in lieu of his mental, financial and physical harassment in default of which the total amount would carry an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount.

            In the result the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the same being pronounced in the open Forum is hereby disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt. 07/04/2021.

                                                                                                       Typed to my dictation

                                                                                                         and corrected by me.

                                                                                                   ( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)

                                                                                                               P r e s i d e n t.           

                                       I agree,                              

                       ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)

                          M e m b e r (W).

Uploaded by

Office Assistant,

DCDRC, Bargarh.