Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/305/2023

HONDA CARS INDIA LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANU GARG - Opp.Party(s)

Gursher Singh Bhandal, Ashish Chauhan, Sonal Chauhan& Mannu Chaudhary Adv.

15 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	305 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	01.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	15.04.2024

 

Honda Cars India Limited (through its Sr. Manager – Legal), Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Knowledge Park, Greater Noida, IDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP – 201306.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

VERSUS

1]       Anu Garg W/o Sh. Sanjeev Garg, R/o House No.1588, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

2]       Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, G.T. Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar (Punjab).

…..Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Ashish Chauhan, Advocate & Ms. Sonal Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Navjyoti, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

Appeal No.	:	306 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	01.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	15.04.2024

 

Lally Motors Private Limited,  G.T. Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar, Punjab through its Managing Director.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

VERSUS

1]       Anu Garg W/o Sh. Sanjeev Garg, R/o House No.1588, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh.

…..Contesting Respondent/Complainant.

2]       M/s Honda Cars Ltd. having its Corporate Office at Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Knowledge Park, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, UP – 201306 through its Managing Director.

…..Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Navjyoti, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Sh. Ashish Chauhan, Advocate & Ms. Sonal Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER 

          Vide this order we are disposing of above captioned appeals bearing No.305 of 2023 filed by Opposite Party No.1 – Honda Cars India Limited and No.306 of 2023 filed by Opposite Party No.2 – Lally Motors Private Limited against order dated 12.09.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short ‘District Commission’). Vide the said order, the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint in the following manner:-

“12.   In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:-

1. to refund the invoice price of Rs.8,77,050/- to the complainant with interest @9% P.A. from the date of purchase of the car till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

14.       The complainant shall return back the car in question to the OPs after receipt of invoice price thereof as ordered above.”

2]      The brief facts as narrated in the impugned order of the District Commission as under:-

“Briefly stated the complainant booked Honda WR-V car with OP No.2  but when the complainant went to the OP No.2 for delivery of the vehicle he was  insisted by OP No.2 to take delivery of a lower variant car i.e. WR-V 1.5 MT (I-DTEC)  with assurances to fix back camera in the said lower model of the car and also assured refund of the excess amount. On the persistent of the OP No.2 the complainant took the delivery of the said vehicle as the demand draft was already paid to OP No.2 in advance. It is alleged that in the Month of  March 2022 when the husband of the complainant had taken the vehicle for service to Harmony Honda Mohali it was informed by them to the  complainant that  warranty of said vehicle will expire on 29.3.2022 and as such asked to extend the same though the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 12.7.2019 and as such the warranty period was upto 11.7.2022. The complainant immediately contacted the OP No2  and after several requests they intimated the complainant that the date 30.3.2019  was mentioned due to clerical mistake but showed its inability to correct the same. Thereafter OP No.2 offered to extended the warranty for one year and get all the defect rectified free of cost and free service pack for 5 years in lieu of settlement. It is alleged that the OPs sold an old car to the complainant and issued hand written bill and did not issue any sale certificate showing month of manufacture of the vehicle in question to the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2.       The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that it sells vehicles to the authorized dealers on no name basis for further sale to potential customers, such as the complainant.  The authorized dealer and the manufacturer operate on a principal to principal basis having no dealings whatsoever once the vehicle is provided to the OP No.2.  The answering OP does not provide after sales services to the end user and it for OP No.2 to undertake the necessary activities. It is averred that even otherwise no manufacturing defect has been highlighted in the present complaint which would warrant  impleading the answering OP.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.

3.       OP No.2 in its reply stated that the complainant has filed the false complaint against it with a intention to grab money and also to defame the reputation of the answering OP after three  years of purchase of the vehicle. It is alleged that even the complainant filed false police complaint against the  answering OP and the same was filed  by the police after thorough investigation. It is averred that in fact the answering OP purchased the vehicle in question from Rajasthan on 22.2.2019 and received on 24.2.2019 at Ludhiana Yard and thereafter sold the same to the complainant on 11.7.2019 and the said fact has been clearly mentioned in the registration certificate. It is alleged that the allegations of the complainant are false as the same has been filed to grab money from the answering OP. In fact the complainant continue to get her vehicle serviced since 2 August 2019 till 8.3.2022. It is averred that there is no deficiency on the part of the   answering OP. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint has been dismissed.”      

3]      In appeal bearing No.305 of 2023, the setting aside of the impugned order has been sought by the appellant/opposite party No.1 - Honda Cars India Limited on the ground that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that there is no relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1/complainant; that respondent No.1/complainant neither paid any consideration to the appellant nor the appellant delivered any vehicle to respondent No.1/complainant; that the appellant was not privy to the alleged transaction of sale happened between respondent No.1/complainant and opposite party No.2 – Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd.; that contractual relationship between the appellant and opposite party No.2 is on principal-to-principal basis. It has further been stated that the District Commission ought to have called the records of the RTO, which would have proved that respondent No.1/complainant is the first owner of the vehicle and more so, as admitted by respondent No.1/complainant, the mileage of the vehicle was only 6 kms at the time of delivery of the vehicle. It has further been stated that the obligation of the appellant is limited to providing warranty services to the vehicle after sale of the same and the District Commission has failed to appreciate the same and also neglected that respondent No.1/complainant is making purposeful use of the vehicle and has plied the same for 66,254 kms as of 16.06.2023 i.e., within 6 years. It has further been stated that the District Commission committed material irregularity by not properly going through and appreciating the documents filed on record by opposite party No.2.

4]                In appeal bearing No.306 of 2023, the appellant/opposite party No.2 – Lally Motors Private Limited has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order is ex-facie illegal, bad in law, null and void and contrary to the facts on record. It has further been stated that respondent No.1/complainant has surreptitiously used the term ‘old car’ and has deliberately not used the term ‘used car’ or second hand car’ as she is very well aware that the car purchased by her was brand-new and she is the first registered owner of the same. It has further been stated that the District Commission failed to give any finding qua the aspect as to how the appellant sold an ‘old car’, which practice could promote the sale. It has further been stated that the District Commission further failed to consider that the bills produced by respondent No.1/complainant includes payment of GST of the purchase of the car in question. It has further been stated that it is true that a person cannot pay GST on the same vehicle twice. It has further been stated that respondent No.1/complainant failed to bring on record any expert evidence to demonstrate that the vehicle used by her was old and that it had any material defect in its working. It has further been stated that the disclosure of fact with regard to month and year of manufacture stood substantiated from the registration certificate itself. It has further been stated that the reliance placed by District Commission on Exhibit C/4, which is a screen-shot of page of the website  maintained by opposite party No.1 is wholly misconceived and misplaced as the said page can easily be maintained and altered by the manufacturer itself. It has further been stated that no allegation is forthcoming as to who made the said entry on the website. It has further been stated that since it is a clerical mistake on the behest of the manufacturer, the same has no legal precedence and the same can always be corrected at the end of the manufacturer.  It has further been stated that the District Commission placed heavily reliance over the screenshot and disregarded the official legal documents issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, which cannot be held to be unreliable. 

5]      Lastly, both the appellants prayed for allowing their respective appeals, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the consumer complaint of respondent No.1/complainant.

6]      On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant that the District Commission, by placing reliance on documents, Exhibit C/4, righty held that the appellants sold an old vehicle to respondent No.1/complainant via misrepresentation and using unfair means and thus, rightly allowed the complaint. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of both the appeals with cost has been made by respondent No.1/complainant. 

7]      We have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record and the written arguments.

8]      The only question, which falls for consideration of this Commission, as to whether the vehicle in question sold by the appellants to respondent No.1/complainant was an old one and whether the District Commission was right in holding so? The only document produced on record, on which, the District Commission based its order in holding that the vehicle sold was an old one, is Exhibit C/4 i.e. the screen short from the website of the appellant/opposite party No.1 – manufacturer wherein the date of purchase of the vehicle has been mentioned as ‘30 Mar, 2019’. It may be stated here that this document does not bear any date. Moreover, the authenticity and genuineness of this document has not been established or proved on record by Respondent No.1/complainant before the District Commission by leading any cogent and convincing evidence, which the District Commission has failed to appreciate while passing the impugned order. Bare perusal of Exhibit OP-4, transpires that the vehicle in question was shipped by the manufacturer – opposite party No.1 to the dealer – opposite party No.2 vide Invoice dated 22.02.2019 through AXIS CARRIERS & LOGISTICS LTD., against order placed by opposite party No.2. Vide this consignment, four vehicles were sent by the manufacturer to the dealer, wherein the vehicle sold to respondent No.1/complainant was also there. In this very document, the details of chassis no., engine no., key no., colour & model were also mentioned. These vehicle were received by opposite party No.2 at its Ludhiana yard on 24.02.2019 and thereafter, sold to respondent No.1/complainant on 11.07.2019 vide Invoice, Annexure C-2. Respondent No.1/complainant in Para 12 of her complaint has averred that the representative of opposite party No.2 stated that the purchase date has been wrongly mentioned as 30.03.2019 due to clerical mistake but the said representative expressed his inability to rectify the said mistake on their part. It may be stated here that respondent No.1/complainant has himself placed on record self-attested photocopy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question, wherein the month and year of manufacturer is mentioned as “02/2019”, which clearly establishes that the vehicle was a brand new vehicle and not an old one as it was sent by the manufacturer to the dealer in February 2019, as discussed above. Had the vehicle in question been an old one, then opposite party No.2 – dealer would not have charged and paid GST thereupon. Not only this, in that eventuality, the Registering Authority would have mentioned so i.e. factum of 2^nd owner in the Registration Certificate. Even if, it is presumed for the sake of argument that it was a clerical mistake in mentioning the purchase date of the vehicle on the website, even then, respondent No.1/complainant cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of such a bona-fide mistake and that too, when he had already used the vehicle for more than 4 years.

9]      It may also be stated here that these days, from the sale of the vehicle up-to its registration, insurance, pollution check, challans, etc., every information is online and anyone can have its access on official websites and other authenticated website or mobile applications and therefore, respondent No.1/ complainant cannot take benefit of such a document or snapshot, which he has failed to substantiate by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Form-22, which is Initial Certificate of compliance with pollution standards, safety standards of components quality and road – worthiness, issued by the manufacturer – opposite party No.1, annexed with the sale certificate, placed on record by respondent No.1/complainant itself further proves that the vehicle purchased by her was a band new vehicle and not an old one as this certificate is always issued at the time of selling a brand new vehicle and this very document bears the chassis number and engine number of the car sold to respondent No.1/complainant. To our considered opinion, the District Commission totally erred in not taking into consideration the documentary evidence placed on record by the appellants and rather based its findings qua the vehicle being old one solely on a document, Exhibit C-4, which respondent No.1/complainant has failed to substantiate by leading cogent and convincing evidence.  In view of above discussion, this Commission is of considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside being not based on true appreciation of facts and documentary evidence on record.

10]    For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals i.e.  appeal bearing No.305 of 2023 filed by Opposite Party No.1 – Honda Cars India Limited and appeal bearing No.306 of 2023 filed by Opposite Party No.2 – Lally Motors Private Limited are allowed. The impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed by District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh is set aside. Consumer Complaint No.688 of 2022 stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

11]              A copy of this order be placed in connected appeal bearing No.306 of 2023.

12]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13]              Files be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

 15.04.2024.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad