Haryana

Ambala

CC/314/2017

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ambala Automobiles India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

I.M.Rao

02 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  314 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  08.09.2017

                                                          Date of decision   :  02.04.2019

 

 

Anil Kumar aged about 45 years son of Sh. Shiv Kumar, resident of Village Brahman Majra, Post Office Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt, Tehsil and District Ambala.

 

     ……. Complainant.

                                                          Vs.

 

1.       Ambala Automobiles India Limited, Showroom-cum-Workshop Village Khuda Khurd, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

2.       Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited, Block-B, Chandrapura IndustrialEstate, Halor-389 351 District Panchmahal, Gujarat (India)

 

….…. Opposite Parties

  

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

 

Coram:       Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

.

                            

Present:       Sh. Manish Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Nikhil Handa, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Sh. Harjot Singh, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

 

Order:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as Ops) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. Either to issue Form no.22 of the latest date of the month of July, 2017 qua the aforesaid Chevrolet Sail UVA Diesel Vehicle and also to get the Registration Certificate of the new temporary no. HR-99-QP-Temp4000, prepared in  favour of the complainant from the Registering Authority, Ambala or to take  back the said vehicle & supply new Chevrolet Sail UVA Diesel Vehicle to the complainant of July 2017 Model.
2. To pay Rs. 200000/ on account of compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay interest @12% per annum on the amount of compensation with effect from the date of purchase of vehicle i.e. 05.06.2013 till  realization.
4. To pay Rs.22000/ as litigation expenses.

Or

any other relief whichthis Hon ble Forum may deemfit.

 

 

The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Sail UVA Diesel Vehicle from the OP No.1 on 05.06.2013 and gave temporary no.HR-99-QP-TSMP0366. He got it financed from Magma Finance Company,  against mortgage of his land. At the time of delivery of the vehicle the OP No.1 told him that the Form no.22 will be made available to him, as and when it will receive the said form from the OP No.2.Thereafter, the complainant repeatedly approached the OP No.1 for collecting form no.22 so that he may get the vehicle registered in his name from the concerned Registering Authority, but the OP No.1 always postponed the matter by making lame excuses. On persistent visits of the complainant, the OP No.1 issued form no.22 on 25.07.2013. On 27.07.2013, at about 07:36 p.m. the complainant went to Babain, District Kurukshetra and all of a sudden engine of vehicle got seized. He informed the company about the said fact, four persons came and took the vehicle by towing it to Baldev Nagar, Ambala City and after about a week on 01.08.2013, the company changed the engine and retuned the vehicle to him and took back all the old papers of the vehicle including Form No.22 from the complainant. At the time of returning the vehicle to him the company had given a new temporary no. HR-99-QP-Temp 4000 to him and returned all the papers of the vehicle except form no.22. The complainant repeatedly approached  the OP No.1 for collecting form no.22 but of no effect. However the OP No.1 disclosed that it has mailed to the OP No.2 for issuance of form no.22 and as and when  it  is received, the same will be supplied to the him. After waiting sufficiently i.e. more than three and half years, the complainant got a plate of engine no. and chassis no. hanged on the vehicle in the month of December, 2016. He has already paid Rs.100000/- as fine for not making Registration Certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant also served a registered AD legal notice dated 10.07.2017 upon the OPs.  On 20.07.2017 OP No.2  replied the said notice, stating that form no.21 had already been sent by them. It is the liability of the OP No.2 issued form no.22.   However, OP No.1 did not receive the said notice and return back for want of incorrect particular. He again issued a legal notice dated 08.08.2017 which was duly received by the OP No.1 but it neither replied the said notice nor provided the form no.22. Hence the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false & frivolous and complaint is hopelessly time barred.  On merits it is stated that OP No.1 issued all necessary documents/ papers of the said car sold to complainant at the time of sale and the complainant had to get registered his car from the concerned Registering Authority(MV) within the stipulated period, which the complainant has failed to do so.  After purchase of the said car, he had to follow the company s instructions for plying the vehicle on road initially for speed limit. The complainant started plying his car on long routes from the very beginning, due to which the engine of his car got seized. After that the complainant on receipt of this problem, reported the matter to the OP No.1 upon this it changed the engine of his car with the new one, being in warranty. It is also stated that he did not get registered his vehicle from the registering authority, on the basis of papers issued initially at the time of sale, wherein the number of original engine fitted in the car, was mentioned. Had he got registered his car with the Registering Authority with the number of original engine of the car then he could have easily got changed the number of engine after replacement of the engine in the said RC. When the complainant got his engine changed from the OP No.1 it was found that the car had not been got registered from the Registering Authority and stipulated period had been elapsed, then he started requesting the OP No.1 for issuance of some additional papers and now dragged the OP un-necessarily  so the complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.

Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action and complaint is hopelessly time barred.  On merits it is stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.2. There is no manufacturing defect nor there do any fault imperfection, short coming in the said car. It has an agreement with OP No.1 as per which the Chevrolet Sales India Pvt Ltd. Thereafter it is the responsibility and the liability of the OP No.1 to sell the cars to the customers and to receive the sale consideration. The necessary services are to be provided by the OP No.1 including to provide all the documents to the seller(s). Thus the present complaint filed against it is not maintainable and deserves dismissal.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit of Anil Kumar Annexure  CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-26 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukhchain, Authorised Signatory, Annexure R/X  and  closed the evidence. The learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Birender Kaushal Zonal Manager, Annexure R/A along with document, Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the learned counsels of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The complainant has pleaded that he purchased the car in question from OP No.1 on 05.06.2013. At the time of purchase of the said car, the OP No.1 did not provide him Form no.22 and told that it will hand-over the form no.22 after receiving the same from OP No.2 and the issued the same on 25.07.2013. However, on 27.07.2013, all of a sudden the engine of the said car got seized and he handed over the car to the OP No.1 for its repairs alongwith all documents. On 01.08.2013, the OP No.1 replaced the engine of the car with new one but did not return form no.22 as a result whereof, he could not get his car registered with the Registration Authority. It may be stated here that the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year 2013 when the OP No.1 did not provide him form no.22.  Section 24-A of the Act which reads as under

Limitation period (1)  The District Forum,  the State Commission  or the National Commission shall not admit a compliant  unless it is filed within two years from the date  on which  the cause of action has arisen.

(2)

As per said Section, the complainant could have filed the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action. However, the complainant has filed the present complaint on 08.09.2017 for redressal of his grievance i.e. after a delay of more than three and a half years, from the date of accrual of cause of action. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed for want of limitation without going into the merits of the case. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, II 2009 CPJ 29(SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that provisions of Section 24(a)  pre-emptory in nature. As a matter of law the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. It is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24-A and give effect to it.  If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decide the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality.  

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint for want of limitation. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :02.04.2019

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member             President