BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.52 of 2019

Date of Instt. 22.02.2019

Date of Decision:28.07.2022

Parvinder Singh, aged 57 years, son of Charan Singh, resident of House No.629/05, Air Force Station, MES Colony, Adampur Doaba, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       A. B. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Through its Senior Sales Manager       Gagandeep Opp. Delhi Public School, Jalandhar-Phagwara   Highway, Jalandhar.

2.       A. B. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Through its Managing Director, 658,   Industrial Area-A, Sherpur Bye Pass, G. T. Road, Ludhiana-       141603.

3.       Ford India Private Limited through its Managing Director, S. P.         Koil Post, Chingalpattu 603204 (Tamilnadu)

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. J. S. Saini, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

                   Sh. Lalit Kakkar, Adv. Counsel for OP No.3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant booked vehicle Ford Ecosport 1.5 and paid Rs.35,000/- on 18.09.2018 vide receipt No.1130, with the OP No.1. The OP No.1 promised with the complainant to provide the vehicle manufactured in September, 2018 alongwith all accessories and also includes stepny cover. The OP No.3 sent Form-22 to the OP No.1 dated 19.09.2018 in which Engine Number etc. is written JU34853 and delivered the vehicle to the OP No.1. The OP No.1 called the complainant that the vehicle has been received and asked the complainant to make the payment of the balance amount and to collect the vehicle. The complainant paid Rs.1,64,000/- on 04.10.2018 as cash and the OP No.1 issued the receipt No.1166 on the same day and the remaining amount of Rs.9,91,000/- was transferred through NEFT through SBI Branch, Air Force Station, Adampur to the Banker of the OP No.1 and a total amount of Rs.11,90,000/- was paid which includes the cost of the vehicle, tax, insurance and the registration charges. The OP No.1 after receiving the total consideration of the vehicle, delivered the vehicle and the OP No.2, issued the Invoice No.703 dated 04.10.2018 and issued a provisional registration certificate PB-08-EC-9693 and in that provisional registration certificate, it is mentioned that the manufacturing date of the vehicle is 6/2018 and the complainant objected to the OP No.1 that before the booking the vehicle the OP No.1 agreed to deliver the vehicle manufactured in September, 2018. The OP No.2 also issued second bill No.703 dated 04.10.2018 of same number same date in which manufacturing date of the vehicle is mentioned as September, 2018 to cover up their malpractices. The OP No.1 promised that the registration certificate of the vehicle will have the endorsement of manufacturing as September, 2018. The OP No.1 mislead the complainant and delivered the vehicle after receiving the full consideration. The OP No.1 gave in writing through its authorized signatory which read as follows:-

“To whom so ever it may concern.

This is to confirm that the mention VIN No.JU34853 will reflect Sep-2018 on RC documents.

Otherwise the payable full amount of vehicle will be refunded to the concerned owner.

2.                The OP No.1 has misrepresented to the complainant that the manufacturing of the vehicle shall be mentioned in the original R.C as September, 2018, whereas the documents supplied to the registration authority bears the manufacturing of the vehicle June-2018. The OPs No.1 & 2 are the dealers of OP No.3. The OPs are doing the malpractices in connivance with each other and carrying on the unfair trade practice and the OP are deficient of service and has taken the amount and thereafter delivered the vehicle which was not manufactured in September-2018. The OP No.1 has given an undertaking to refund the amount in case the original R.C. does not bear the manufacturing date September-2018. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 13.11.2018, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.11,90,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 04.10.2018 till the date of payment. Further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant at the hands of the OPs and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 filed its joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable both factually as well as legally. The complaint is misleading, false and frivolous to extort money from the OPs by harassing and defaming the OPs. The basic motive of complainant is to extract amount by using undue influence on the OPs. The complainant has concealed material facts from the Commission. In fact, the Hon'ble In fact, the vehicle mentioned in the complaint was sold by OPs No.1 and 2 on 19/9/2018 and in this regard, the Invoice dated 19/9/2019 with serial No. 3312051675, Form-22, Provisional Registration Certificate are attached. On the day on 9/10/2018, the OPs applied for provisional registration certificate to Jalandhar RTA, as such there was no delay on the part of OPs. The OPs never assured or promised the complainant that the vehicle sold to the complainant would be manufactured in September, 2019 since; every vehicle manufactured by Opposite Party No.3 has to be tested and gone through rigorous tests for specifications as such there is no instant readymade delivery by any company anywhere in the world. The entry stock register Ex.OP1/5 would reflect that the vehicle sold to the complainant was latest make not lying with the Opposite Parties for a long period . The perusal of Ex.C-7 would reveal that the Opposite Parties never promised or assured that the vehicle agreed to be sold to the complainant would be September 2018 make. However the model of every vehicle is always considered from the date of sale, when the vehicle is put on road for driving. After sale of vehicle and delivery of vehicle on 4/10/2018, the replying Opposite Parties applied for registration provisional registration certificate to Jalandhar RTA on 9/10/2018. And RC of the vehicle was delivered to the complainant thereafter. Ex.C- 4 was never issued by Opposite Parties at any point of time and the same is forged and fabricated one. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint. The present complaint has not been filed bonafidely and is accentuated with malafide intent as such, the same is liable to be dismissed as the very purpose of Consumer Protection Act, is to protect the bonafide customers and not to benefit anyone for mischievous objectives and the Act is not a consumer welfare. Hence the protection to consumer by Consumer Protection Act cannot be coined as Welfare of someone by granting and extending relief to which, any complainant is not entitled to. There is no malpractice or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. On merits, the factum with regard to booking of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that the OP No.3 sent Form-22 to the OP No.1 dated 19.09.2018 in which engine number etc. is written. It is also admitted that the complainant paid Rs.1,64,000/- on 04.10.2018 as cash and the OP No.1 issued the receipt No.1166 on the same day and the remaining amount of Rs.9,91,000/- was transferred through NEFT through SBI Branch, Air Force Station, Adampur to the Banker of the OP No.1 and a total amount of Rs.11,90,000/- was paid which includes the cost of the vehicle, tax, insurance and the registration charges, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in as much as the entire alleged dispute is not related to any liability of or any service to be rendered by the manufacturer i.e. answering OP. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable as the said car as purchased by the complainant from the OP No.1 was June-2018 model and was a brand new one. Further upon the information as provided by the Authorized Dealer it is stated that upon receiving a booking from the complainant, since the Authorized Dealer had in its inventory a readily available brand new June, 2018 Ford Ecosport car, the Authorized Dealer had duly inquired from the complainant that if he would purchase the same. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant had made the payment of the purchase price and had taken the delivery of the said car only after being fully satisfied with condition and verification of the very fact that it was a June-2018 make model. Further, the delivery of the said car was taken by the complainant without any protest or demur. On merits, the factum with regard to booking of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

5.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

6.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties very minutely.

8.                The complainant has purchased a vehicle Ford EcoSport 1.5 from the OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant has proved the receipt of booking amount for Rs.35,000/- Ex.C-1 and Rs.1,64,000/- were paid on 04.10.2018 in cash, the receipt of the same has been proved as Ex.C-2. As per the submission of the complainant, the remaining amount of Rs.9,91,000/- was transferred through NEFT through SBI Branch, Air Force Station, Adampur. Total amount of Rs.11,90,000/- was paid. This fact has been admitted by the OPs also. The invoice from the company i.e. OP No.3 was sent to the OPs No.1 and 2 vide Ex.P1/1, vide which the vehicle EcoSport was sent to OPs No.1 and 2 and this vehicle was sold to the complainant, vide invoice Ex.C-3 to the complainant on 04.10.2018. The case of the complainant is that the OPs No.1 and 2 assured the complainant that they will give the vehicle, with the date of manufacturing as September, 2018, but when he saw the invoice, the month of manufacturing was mentioned as June, 2018. In this way, the OPs have cheated the complainant. He has referred the invoice Ex.C-4. Ex.C-4, the invoice is also dated 04.10.2018, wherein the year of manufacturing has been mentioned as September, 2018, but this document has been denied by the complainant. It has been alleged that this document is forged and fabricated document. Perusal of this document itself shows that this is not the computerized copy of the invoice rather the same seems to be the photocopy of the invoice and the same is alleged to be issued by the OP on 04.10.2018. Perusal of this document shows that this document was not issued by the OPs No.1 and 2 as the way the month of manufacturing and the year has been mentioned in Ex.C-3 is different in Ex.C-4. The complainant has further referred the document Ex.C-7 allegedly issued by the OPs No.1 and 2. Perusal of this document further shows that though there are initials of somebody, but whose initials are there, it has not been proved nor the date has been mentioned on this document. Similarly no number has been mentioned on it to show that this document was ever issued by the OPs No.1 and 2 and who is the authorized signatory?, nothing has been mentioned on it. This document has also been denied by the OPs. Thus, both the documents Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-7 have been denied by the OPs, but the complainant has not proved on record that these two documents were ever issued by the authorized signatory of the OPs No.1 and 2. The name of the authorized signatory is clear from the Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4. The affidavit of this witness could have been filed to prove that this document was issued by the OPs No.1 and 2, but this fact has not been proved. Even otherwise, the provisional registration certificate Ex.C-6/Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.C-5/Ex.OP1/2 show that the month and year of manufacturing of the vehicle has been mentioned as June, 2018. The chassis number and engine number mentioned in the vehicle clearly show June, 2018 as the month and year of manufacturing of the vehicle, which has been incorporated in the provisional registration certificate. As per law, nobody is authorized to issue such certificate Ex.C-7 as has allegedly been issued by OPs to the effect that the VIN No.JU34853 will reflect September, 2018 on RC documents. This certificate itself does not clearly indicate as to what does the word ‘VIN number’ means. As per RC, this number is of engine and nowhere in all the documents, the word ‘VIN’ has been mentioned. It has not been proved by the complainant that the OP has ever assured the complainant to give him the vehicle manufactured in September, 2018. There is no such document on the record. There is no complaint regarding any defect in the vehicle. The vehicle is being plied/run by the complainant. As such, the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

28.07.2022         Member                          Member           President