Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Smt.Radhika Arora has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased one Hyundai i10 car of while colour with Chassis No.MALAM51BLFM612046 and Engine No.G4HGFM872772 from M/s.Ahuja Automobiles (Kosmo hyundai) Batala Road, Amritsar vide invoice No.H423592462 dated 21.12.2015. As per the service schedule, the complainant handed over the car for first service to the Service Centre on 27.2.2016. From the service repair order, it was noticed that the delivery date of the car in question was shown as 2.3.2015 against the date of purchase i.e. 21.12.2015. This was pointed out to the Service Centre as well as Administrative Section of Ahuja Automobiles, however, the complainant was told that this is as per the vehicle management system of their principles i.e. Hyundai and they have nothing to do on this account. In the absence of any satisfactory reply, the track of the vehicle was verified as per online information available which resulted the following shocking facts.
a) The above said car with Chassis No.MALAM51BLFM612046 and Engine No.G4HGFM872772 was received in stock by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles on 19.1.2015 vide HMI Invoice No.0091469027 dated 19.1.2015.
b) Further, this car is shown to have been sold by the dealer by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles vide their invoice No.H201400542 dated 31.1.2015.
c) The delivery date of this vehicle is shown as 2.3.2015 which matches the date as per the service/ repair order issued to me on 27.2.2016.
Immediately, these facts were brought to the notice of by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles vide letter sent through email as well as through registered letter on 15.3.2016 duly served upon them on 16.3.2016, they were asked to clarify the following specific queries:-
a) The year of Model and manufacturing of car with Chassis No.MALAM51BLFM612046 and Engine No.G4HGFM872772 sold by them to the complainant vide invoice No.H423592462 dated 21.12.2015.
b) How the car in question already sold by them vide invoice No.H201400542 dated 31.1.2015 and delivered to that customer on 2.3.2015 has again been sold to the complainant on 21.12.2015 vide their invoice No.H423592462 dated 21.12.2015.
But no reply was received from by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles and the position remains the same till date. The matter was also brought to the notice of Hyundai Motors India, Delhi through email and registered letter dated 29.3.2016 delivered to the company on 31.3.2016 requesting them to direct their dealer by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles to give reply to his letter dated 15.3.2016. From the above act and conduct it is believed that a fraud has been done with the complainant by selling him the old second hand car against the new purchased. It is further submitted that i10 car is a prominent product of Hyundai and white colour is a hot selling in the market. Keeping in view this fact, it is very difficult to believe that a car which was received by the dealer by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles in their stock on 19.1.2015 has been sold to the complainant after a period of almost one year i.e. 21.12.2015. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- Opposite Party by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles may please be directed to replace the new i10 car with brand new car.
- Damage of Rs.2 lacs to compensate the complainant for harassment and mental torture.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under the law against Opposite Party No.1. Since no specific allegation has been levelled in the complaint against Opposite Party No.1, purported complainant is not entitled for any relief against Opposite Party No.1; the present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of this Forum as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The process of Consumer Fora can not become a tool at the hands of unscrupulous persons who file complaint merely with a view to extract money in the garb of compensation. The mere oral and bald statement of purported complainant that there was negligence or deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1, will not make Opposite Party No.1 negligent on this regard. The present complaint is in fact filed at the behest of certain vested interest, the purported complainant have filed the present complaint out of greed and lust for money and on account of the fact that certain cases have gone adverse to dealers of various companies and that this complaint is alleged to be likely to meet the same fate. On merits, it is admitted as correct that as per invoice dated 21.12.2015 the vehicle i10 car while colour with Chassis Number and engine number mentioned was sold to complainant. With regard to the service of vehicle in question on 27.2.2016, the same is matter of record as the vehicle in question reported at the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 on 27.2.2016 with running mileage on speedometer as 152 only. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the mention of date of delivery of the vehicle on the repair order as 2.3.2015 instead of 21.12.2015 the same was due to error in the system which stood rectified the moment the same was brought to the notice of General Manager of Opposite Party No.1. In fact the husband of complainant who brought the vehicle for service on 27.2.2016 was very much satisfied with overall dealing in the agency that day that is why he signed the satisfactory note giving rating to various jobs to his satisfaction and never complained that day about any shortcoming or discrepancy as alleged. Further, the track record of the vehicle is never available on online as alleged by purported complainant. The snapshort alleged as ‘Annexure C’ is a fudged and created document by purported complainant with malafide intention as she is trying to blackmail Opposite Parties due to clerical error on the repair order dated 27.2.2016 with regard to date of delivery of the vehicle to the purported complainant. The complainant is not challenging other narrations on the said repair card wherein name of complainant with her husband name as well as address is mentioned correctly. Though the vehicle in question was received by Opposite Party No.1 from Opposite Party No.2 in January, 2015, but it is wrong and incorrect, hence denied that the vehicle was delivered to somebody else, except than to complainant on 21.12.2015 only. On receipt of the letter dated 15.3.2016 from the complainant, the General Manager of Opposite Party No.1 personally contacted the complainant and explained the situation of clerical error of mention of wrong date of delivery on the repair order dated 27.2.2016, and that no invoice No.H201400542 by Opposite Party No.1 has been issued in favour of any person as alleged, and that the vehicle in question was never sold to anyone on 31.01.2015 as alleged and that the vehicle was sold to complainant as fresh piece, and that is why at the time of first service on 27.2.2016, the running mileage of the vehicle was 152 only, and that the complainant never reported any fault in the vehicle, for which she showed her satisfaction. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made. After filing the written version, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Upon notice, Opposite Party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the answering Opposite Party on the sole ground that no cause of action has arisen against Opposite Party No.2. A bare perusal of the complaint will reveal that no allegation is made out against Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 is neither a proper or necessary party to the present proceedings nor any cause of action has arisen against the answering Opposite Party for filing the present complaint. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as no cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. A bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that all allegations are made against Opposite Party No.1 and there is not a single allegation against answering Opposite Party as to how the answering Opposite Party is deficient in providing services. Moreover, without prejudice to what has been stated hereinabove, it is to be noted that the Opposite Party No.2 is not under any obligation where no manufacturing defect is proven. The complainant has failed to produce any material to substantiate its allegation to prove manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the complaint that there was any manufacturing defect and allegation is only against Opposite Party No.1. Without prejudice as to what has been stated, it is submitted that as per the information received by the Opposite Party No.2, it is stated that the vehicle with VIN No.MALAM51BLFM6102046 bearing Engine No.G4HGFM872772 has been registered with customer name as Radhika Arora with the date of sale as 21.12.2015 in the vehicle management system of the answering Opposite Party. It is stated that the screen shot of GDMS obtained by the complainant is from unreliable source and the complainant should be put to strict proof of the source of the same. As per the information available to the answering Opposite Party, the complainant was fully satisfied with the services rendered by Opposite Party No.1 and has signed the satisfaction note and given the highest ratings to the Opposite Party No.1 for their service in the quality rating form. It is further submitted that there is no allegation relating to performance of the car and admittedly there is no defect in the car itself. It is submitted that the obligation of the answering Opposite Party is only limited to warranty obligations and admittedly, there is no allegation related to performance of car or violation of warranty obligations and hence, question of deficiency or defect in goods manufactured by the answering Opposite Parties does not arise at all. On merits, the Opposite Party No.2 took almost same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In her bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed her evidence.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Aditya Sharma Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
6. We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
7. The complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and submitted that she purchased one Hyundai i10 car of while colour with Chassis No.MALAM51BLFM612046 and Engine No.G4HGFM872772 from M/s.Ahuja Automobiles (Kosmo hyundai) Batala Road, Amritsar vide invoice No.H423592462 dated 21.12.2015. As per the service schedule, the complainant handed over the car for first service to the Service Centre on 27.2.2016. From the service repair order, it was noticed that the delivery date of the car in question was shown as 2.3.2015 against the date of purchase i.e. 21.12.2015. This was pointed out to the Service Centre as well as Administrative Section of Ahuja Automobiles, however, the complainant was told that this is as per the vehicle management system of their principles i.e. Hyundai and they have nothing to do on this account. In the absence of any satisfactory reply, the track of the vehicle was verified as per online information available which resulted the following shocking facts.
a) The above said car with Chassis No.MALAM51BLFM612046 and Engine No.G4HGFM872772 was received in stock by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles on 19.1.2015 vide HMI Invoice No.0091469027 dated 19.1.2015.
b) Further, this car is shown to have been sold by the dealer by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles vide their invoice No.H201400542 dated 31.1.2015.
c) The delivery date of this vehicle is shown as 2.3.2015 which matches the date as per the service/ repair order issued to me on 27.2.2016.
Immediately, these facts were brought to the notice of by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles vide letter sent through email as well as through registered letter on 15.3.2016 duly served upon them on 16.3.2016, they were asked to clarify the following specific queries:-
a) The year of Model and manufacturing of car with Chassis No.MALAM51BLFM612046 and Engine No.G4HGFM872772 sold by them to the complainant vide invoice No.H423592462 dated 21.12.2015.
b) How the car in question already sold by them vide invoice No.H201400542 dated 31.1.2015 and delivered to that customer on 2.3.2015 has again been sold to the complainant on 21.12.2015 vide their invoice No.H423592462 dated 21.12.2015.
But no reply was received from by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles and the position remains the same till date. The matter was also brought to the notice of Hyundai Motors India, Delhi through email and registered letter dated 29.3.2016 delivered to the company on 31.3.2016 requesting them to direct their dealer by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles to give reply to his letter dated 15.3.2016. From the above act and conduct it is believed that a fraud has been done with the complainant by selling him the old second hand car against the new purchased. It is further submitted that i10 car is a prominent product of Hyundai and white colour is a hot selling in the market. Keeping in view this fact, it is very difficult to believe that a car which was received by the dealer by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles in their stock on 19.1.2015 has been sold to the complainant after a period of almost one year i.e. 21.12.2015.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant and submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the answering Opposite Party on the sole ground that no cause of action has arisen against Opposite Party No.2. A bare perusal of the complaint will reveal that no allegation is made out against Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 is neither a proper or necessary party to the present proceedings nor any cause of action has arisen against the answering Opposite Party for filing the present complaint. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as no cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. A bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that all allegations are made against Opposite Party No.1 and there is not a single allegation against answering Opposite Party as to how the answering Opposite Party is deficient in providing services. Moreover, without prejudice to what has been stated hereinabove, it is to be noted that the Opposite Party No.2 is not under any obligation where no manufacturing defect is proven. The complainant has failed to produce any material to substantiate its allegation to prove manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Admittedly, there is no allegation in the complaint that there was any manufacturing defect and allegation is only against Opposite Party No.1. Without prejudice as to what has been stated, it is submitted that as per the information received by the Opposite Party No.2, it is stated that the vehicle with VIN No.MALAM51BLFM6102046 bearing Engine No.G4HGFM872772 has been registered with customer name as Radhika Arora with the date of sale as 21.12.2015 in the vehicle management system of the answering Opposite Party. It is stated that the screen shot of GDMS obtained by the complainant is from unreliable source and the complainant should be put to strict proof of the source of the same. As per the information available to the answering Opposite Party, the complainant was fully satisfied with the services rendered by Opposite Party No.1 and has signed the satisfaction note and given the highest ratings to the Opposite Party No.1 for their service in the quality rating form. It is further submitted that there is no allegation relating to performance of the car and admittedly there is no defect in the car itself. It is submitted that the obligation of the answering Opposite Party is only limited to warranty obligations and admittedly, there is no allegation related to performance of car or violation of warranty obligations and hence, question of deficiency or defect in goods manufactured by the answering Opposite Parties does not arise at all.
9. The contention of the Opposite Parties that as per invoice dated 21.12.2015 the vehicle i10 car while colour with Chassis Number and engine number mentioned was sold to complainant. With regard to the service of vehicle in question on 27.2.2016, the same is matter of record as the vehicle in question reported at the service centre of Opposite Party No.1 on 27.2.2016 with running mileage on speedometer as 152 only. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the mention of date of delivery of the vehicle on the repair order as 2.3.2015 instead of 21.12.2015 the same was due to error in the system which stood rectified the moment the same was brought to the notice of General Manager of Opposite Party No.1. In fact the husband of complainant who brought the vehicle for service on 27.2.2016 was very much satisfied with overall dealing in the agency that day that is why he signed the satisfactory note giving rating to various jobs to his satisfaction and never complained that day about any shortcoming or discrepancy as alleged. Further, the track record of the vehicle is never available on online as alleged by purported complainant. The snapshort alleged as ‘Annexure C’ is a fudged and created document by purported complainant with malafide intention as she is trying to blackmail Opposite Parties due to clerical error on the repair order dated 27.2.2016 with regard to date of delivery of the vehicle to the purported complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to prove by any cogent and convincing evidence that the Opposite Party No.1 has sold the second hand car in question to the complainant Moreover, the complainant has vehemently submitted that a fraud has been done with the complainant by selling him the old second hand car against the new purchased. It is further submitted that i10 car is a prominent product of Hyundai and white colour is a hot selling in the market. Keeping in view this fact, it is very difficult to believe that a car which was received by the dealer by M/s.Ahuja Automobiles in their stock on 19.1.2015 has been sold to the complainant after a period of almost one year i.e. 21.12.2015. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties has argued that since as per the allegations of fraud of the complainant in the complaint, the matter in dispute require lengthy and detailed evidence/ trial to prove either way, the present matter can not be disposed of in summary trial under the Consumer Protection Act. Perusal of the complaint as well as affidavit produced by the complainant herself Ex.C1 shows that the complainant has time and again asserted in the complaint that a fraud has been committed by the Opposite Parties with her by selling a second hand car. As asserted by the complainant herself that a fraud has been committed by the Opposite Parties with her by selling second hand car. It clearly becomes a case replete with the elements of fraud, cheating and such disputes are certainly not adjudicable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies because the proceedings before the Consumer fora are summary in nature . In the case in hand extremely complicated questions of fact and law are involved, as has been discussed in an elaborate manner in the preceding paragraphs , as such the parties are required to take their dispute to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction where the parties can lead elaborate oral and documentary evidence and where they will get an opportunity to examine their witnesses and cross examine the witnesses of the other party in order to elicit the truth. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
10. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
11. As such, instant complaint is relegated to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated: 23.05.2017.
