District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.635/2019.
Date of Institution: 24.12.2019.
Date of Order: 26.07.2022.
Rakesh Munjal S/o Shri V.K.Munjal r/o H.No. 1220, Sector-15, Faridabad, Haryana
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Car 24 Services Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, 4th floor, Plot Number-65, Landmark House 65, Sector-44, Gurgaon – 122002.
Also at:
Plot No.4, Faridabad, Sector-10, Faridabad – 121006 (DLF Faridabad).
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Akshay Goel, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Yashpal Yadav, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had a Toyota Innova Car bearing NO. DL 4C AE 5306 and as it had become 10 years old, he decided to sell the car in scrap and for the same he approached the opposite party at their Faridabad showroom. The opposite party offered to buy the above mentioned vehicle in scrap at a value of Rs.1,35,000/- and the complainant was issued an appointment Id, i.e. 1107751619. The complainant was promised by the opposite party that after scrapping the above mentioned vehicle, he would get the chasis within 3-4 weeks from the date of sale and believing such assurances the complainant gave vehicle to the opposite party on31.03.2019 and received the payment on the same day. It was pertinent to mention that even after the expiry of 1 month from the date of sale, the complainant did not receive the chasis of his vehicle and contacted the opposite party for the same, however, to the utter shock of the complainant, the opposite party had been lingering on the issue by giving false excuses and making false commitments. The complainant had followed up with the opposite party through email, personal visit and on telephone, however, the opposite party had only given assurance to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as opposite party despite promising to give back the chasis to complainant had not given the same. The complainant was under an apprehension that opposite party had sold his car to someone without his permission and the vehicle could be misused. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) provide the chasis of the vehicle NO. DL 4C AE 5306.
b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) Any other relief which this Hon;ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that opposite party was engaged in the business of operating, developing and maintaining an e-commerce portal/applications for the sale and purchase of pre-owned/used cars and acts as a conduit between the seller and purchaser of the vehicle. It was clear from the nature of the day to day business of the opposite party, that the opposite party was merely a service facilitator and not a service provider. It was submitted that the opposite party had clearly stated in the terms and conditions displayed on its website that on procuring a vehicle from the customer who approached the opposite party to sell its vehicle, the opposite party immediately sell the customer’s vehicle to a dealer for determination of price and transfer the vehicle to an end buyer. It was submitted that the complainant Shri Rakesh Munjal approached the opposite party at their Faridabad showroom to sell in scrap its Toyota Innova Vehicle bearing registration NO. DL-4C-AE-5306 manufactured in the year 2006 and having chassis No.KUN407052260 (herein referred to as the vehicle. The opposite party agreed to purchase the scrap vehicle form the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. Thereafter the complainant was issued an appointment ID i.e. 1107751619. Thereafter the opposite party provided the complainant the customer application form alongwith the terms and conditions. The complainant upon reading the same duly signed the customer application form and the terms and conditions. On purchasing the aforesaid vehicle form the complainant, the opposite party sold the vehicle in scrap to the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh Maan S/o Shri Major Singh R/o 668 ff Aksardham Apartment Pkt3 Dwarka on 5th April 2019. Thereupon the opposite party issued a vehicle transaction form dated 05.04.2019 to the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh Maan. The dealer on reading and understanding the vehicle transaction form duly signed the vehicle transaction form. As per the course of business, the dealer on purchasing a scrap vehicle from the opposite party, scraps the vehicle and provides the proof of scrap i.e. the chassis plate to the opposite party who thereupon provide to the customer. When the opposite party followed up with the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh Maan to provide the chassis plate of the complainant’s vehicle, the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh used to inform the opposite party that he would provide the chassis in somedays. Opposite party kept following up with the dealer, however, on one pretext or other, the dealer kept delaying in providing the chassis plate to the opposite party. It was submitted that on continuously following up with the dealer, the opposite party was informed by the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh that the chassis plate was lost by the dealer Shri
Gurpreet Singh. It was pertinent to mention that the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh also provided a notarized affidavit to the opposite party stating that he had purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4C-AE-5306 as a scrap vehicle. Thereupon the chassis number of the said vehicle had been misplaced by Sonu Disposal Works Shri Ganganagar. The dealer S
hri Gurpreet Singh had also stated in his affidavit that he would be responsible for any police case, criminal case and court case. Hence, the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh should be made liable for the loss caused to the complainant in the present matter. Thereafter the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh filed a FIR in Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi on 6.2.2020. In the FIR, the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh had clearly stated that he had lost the chassis plate form his hand bag in Delhi in the month of December 2019. He had also stated in the FIR dated 06.02.2020 that he would be responsible for the misuse of the chassis number plate and for this lost information. As per clause 4 of the Vehicle Transaction Form dated 05.04.2019 duly read and signed by the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh, the Dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh agreed that for any scrap deal pertaining to the vehicle, he would be liable too close any mandate of applicable statutory compliances. The dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh also accepted that he would be solely liable for any liabilities arising with respect to the vehicle and Cars24 should not be liable for the same in any manner. The dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh was bounded by the aforesaid terms and conditions of the Vehicle Transaction Form dated 05.04.2019 as on reading and understanding the same the dealer Shri Gurpreet Singh had put his signatures on it. Hence, he was bound to abide by and follow the tems and conditions. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. with the prayer to : a) provide the chasis of the vehicle NO. DL 4C AE 5306. b) pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) Any other relief which this Hon;ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Akshay Goel s/o Shri Anil Kumar Goel, aged 32 years old, R/o H.NO. 430, Sector-29, Faridabad, on behalf of Shri Rakesh Munjal s/o lt. Shri V.K.Munjal, Annexure1 – Cars24 Customer Protection Policy,, Annx.-2 – email dated 07.10.2019.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party, Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Himanshu Dixit, Authorized representative of cArs24 Services Private Limited having its office at 4th floor, Plot No.65, Institutional Area, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Ex.OP/1 –authority letter, Ex.R-2 – Customer application form-Delivery, ex.R-3 – Vehicle transaction form, Ex.R-4 – affidavit of Gurpreet Singh, Ex.R-5 – Information report, Ex.R-5 – Information report.
6. In this complaint, vehicle bearing No. DL-4CAE-5306 was sold by the complainant to opposite party – Car 24 Services Pvt. Ltd. with the consideration amount of Rs.1,35,000/- and the complainant filed this complaint bearing No. 635/2019 and the date of institution is 24.12.2019. An agreement was executed by the seller and the buyer that they will provide chassis plate within six month from the date of sale of the vehicle. After going through the evidence led by the complainant and the opposite party that the complaint was filed by the complainant on 24.12.2019 and the opposite party has sold the vehicle in question vide Ex.R4 to some Gurpreet Singh Maan S/o Shri Major Singh Mann, Sangur, Punjab on 31.01.2020. As per Information Report vide Ex.R-5, the report of loss of chassis no. plate is on 06.02.2020. As per agreement and the T&C of the Car 24, it was the duty of opposite party to deliver the chassis plate to the complainant. So many letters and telephonic message were written by the complainant to the opposite party. It shows the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party i.e Car 24 Services Pvt. Ltd. is proved.
7. After going through the evidence led by both the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the loss of the chassis no. plate is the serious matter. It can be used in heinous crime. It was the duty of the opposite party to deliver the plate to the complainant as per the agreement. Hence, the complaint is allowed.
8. Opposite party is directed to pay :
a) pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
b) Rs,5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Compliance of then order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 26.07.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
