BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.396 of 2023
Date of Instt. 03.10.2023
Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
Jagdish Raj Sharma (Nb/Sub Rtd.), Mob.7973713742 R/o 653, Guru Nanak Pura (East) Jalandhar City-144001.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Akriti World, Vasal Tower, Police Line Rd, Opposite Prsident Hotel, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001, Mob. No.0181-5003333, 8872001432, 8872001630, 9888100684 & 8872001638
2. TATA Motors Ltd, 4th Floor, Ahura Centre, 82 Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093. Contact 022- 62407101.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. V. K. Attri, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased a car "Tata Punch (Pure Rythm)" from the OP No.1, run by OP No.2, on 14 August 2023 (about 48 days ago) through CSD, on paying full amount of Rs.6,41,470/-(cost of car 5,63,470 + RC Charges + vehicle insurance charges + Fast tag amount = Rs 78000.) All required documents were handed over there itself. The car was delivered to the complainant by issuing delivery challan with a promise that required CSD formalities will be fulfilled within 2 - 3 working days by OP No.1. As per the procedure, the cost of car Rs.5,63,470/- is to be paid to CSD from his bank account only. For that ‘Akriti world’ has to transfer the cost of car to my bank account. The complainant has already handed over them a signed blank bank cheque as security cheque. On paying the whole amount to CSD by him, CSD will issue "Local supply order." Then only bill can be prepared and can apply to RTO for issue of Registration Certificate (RC) & number Plate. In between these 48 days, he personally have made not less than 7 visits to them, met everybody concerned (Mr. Ashwani, Ms Richa Sachdeva, Mr. Raman Sharma, Mr. Deepak, Mr. Gaurav & others) to request to do something and made repeated telephone calls, but no result. Then he lodged a complaint no.5-168765787671. After 3-4 hours, received a SMS that his issue has been resolved. He again complained that his issue has not been resolved. They again gave him a complaint no. 5-168765789358. No response yet. Further to this he talked to Mr. Rashit Molhotra (Mob. no. 9166559666) Tata territory sales Head Chandigarh, and was told to send his issue on "Whats app and e-mail" which he sent in detail. But since then he is not picking his call nor he has seen his "whatsapp msg and e-mail". Having no other option or alternative left and filed the present complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to do the needful to issue me bill, RC and number plate. Further, the OP may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the harassment, mental tension, agony and wastage of time suffered by the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and the present complainant and complaint does not come with the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act as amended unto date. It is further averred that there is no cause of action against the answering OP. It is further averred that the complainant has not come before this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. The true facts are that initially the complainant approached the answering OP for the purchase of the car. The complainant made the part payment. It was incumbent on the part of the answering OP to apply the registration certificate of the car but only after getting the requisite and necessary charges from the complainant, but the complainant has failed to pay requisite and necessary Charges. The complainant is still the delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and not paid and further failed to discharge the liability. The answering OP requested the complainant many times to release the remaining payment, so that registration certificate can be applied but when the answering OP not received any further amount from the complainant, having no alternative, the answering OP has already applied the registration certificate before the competent authority. However, till now the complainant has not made the entire payment. The answering OP is entitled to receive the balance amount alongwith interest and compensation. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the car is admitted and it is also admitted that the quotation was given, 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.
3. The OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is without any cause of action qua OP No.1 in as much, it is discernable from the contents of the complaint in hand that the invoice has not been issued, Registration Certificate and number plate of the vehicle has not been provided by OP No.1 to the complainant which is evident from para 1 and 2 of the complaint and the complainant sought issuance of invoice and Registration Certificate and number plate of the vehicle alongwith a compensation to a tune of Rs.50,000/- from OP's. Thus, no cause of action has arisen for filing of the present complaint qua Answering OP. Even otherwise, the relationship between the Answering OP and OP No.1 are on Principal to Principal basis. The Answering OP always sells its vehicle to its authorized dealers only after receiving consideration from them. As per the terms of dealership agreement, all the sale and after sale services falls in the domain of respective dealers only and thus, there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and Answering OP. Therefore, for the lapses of dealer, if any, the same can only be addressed by the said dealer only and the same shall be the responsibility of the dealer and the answering OP has nothing to do with the same and has been unnecessarily dragged in the present litigation and the name of Answering OP may be deleted from the array of parties in the present compliant. It is further averred that the answering OP is only manufacturer of vehicle and sell the same to its authorized dealers on "principal to principal" basis. It is further submitted that there is no privity of contract between the Answering OP and complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement, after sale of the vehicle by manufacturer to its dealers, sale and after sales service to respective customers falls within the domain of the authorized dealer. The relevant clause of the dealership agreement is reproduced herein below for the perusal of this Commission:-
"3(e) This agreement has been entered into and executed by the parties on a Principal to Principal basis and is a contract for Service.
In view of the above, the answering OP is not necessary parties in the present complaint and they have been unnecessarily dragged in by the complainant. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase 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.
4. 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.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the complainant in person as well as learned counsel for the OP and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. The complainant has purchased a car TATA Punch from the OP No.1 through CSD against the payment of Rs.6,41,470/- (cost of car Rs.5,63,470/- + RC charges + vehicle insurance charges+ Fast Tag amount= Rs.78000/-). He has obtained the loan from the bank i.e. Yes Bank and exchanged his old car. As per Ex.C-1, he has proved that he obtained new car loan from Yes Bank for Rs.3,05,186/-. He has exchanged his old car ALTO 800 LXi, vide delivery receipt Ex.C-1, which is the part of the certificate from bank. The complainant has proved on record the payment receipts showing online payment which is also the part of Ex.C-1. The statement of account Ex.O-1 proves that on 19.08.2023, the amount of Rs.2,94,000/- has been credited in the account of the OP, which finds corroboration from Ex.C-1. Statement of account Ex.O-1 finds corroboration from the receipts filed on record by the complainant Ex.C-1. As per Ex.C-2, the OP has delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 14.08.2023. The grudge of the complainant is that despite receipt of the entire payment and the number of requests made by him to the OP and depositing the amount for RC, but the RC has not been issued to the complainant. The complainant has also proved on record the messages sent by the complainant to the OP raising his grouse and the call record showing that he has been making efforts to contact the OP but to no effect. The messages and the reply to the messages have been proved by the complainant Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8. The OP has produced on record that the provisional registration certificate was provided to the complainant. Perusal of this document shows that the same was provided on 18.11.2023 with the validity from 18.11.2023 to 17.12.2023, but the complainant has not been provided the RC till the filing of the complaint.
8. The OP No.2 in their written statement has alleged that the complainant has made the part payment, but the complainant has not deposited the charges for the registration certificate. The registration certificate can be provided only after receiving the full payment, but this contention is not tenable as it is the dealer, who is to apply the RC and handover the same to the OP. Perusal of Ex.O-1 shows that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.6,57,944/- with the OP through different modes, then it is the responsibility of the OP to provide the RC. As per written statement filed on record by the OP No.1, the part payment was made by the complainant, therefore, the RC was not given, but this contention is not tenable. Had the complainant made the part payment, then definitely the vehicle would not have been delivered to the complainant. The complainant is not related to the OP No.1 that they will handover the vehicle without taking the full amount. Even in the written statement, nothing has been mentioned as to how much amount is due towards the complainant. There is clear cut negligence on the part of the OPs. As per the statement Ex.O-2, Rs.53,776/- have been taken for the RC charges, whereas as per Ex.O3, the amount of Rs.51,793/- have been deposited by the OP No.1 with the RTA Department. The complainant has alleged that he has not been provided the bill as well as number plate. It is the duty of the OP No.1, the dealer to provide the bill, RC and the number plates to the consumer, at the time when the vehicle is product/vehicle is purchased, but they have not done so. This is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. The OP No.2 is a company. No manufacturing defect has been alleged by the complainant and no deficiency on the part of the OP No.2 has been proved. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief against OP No.1 only.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against OP No.1 and the OP No.1 is directed to issue the Bill, RC and Number Plate to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance i.e. compensation and litigation expenses be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. 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
03.04.2024 Member Member President
