DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No: 417 of 2011] Date of Institution : 07.09.2011 Date of Decision : 08.05.2012 ----------------------------------------- Ranjit Singh son of Shri Tarlok Singh, resident of House No. 1308, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. VERSUS[1] M/s Charisma Goldwheels (P) Limited, 7, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory. [2] M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited, DLF Tower-3, 3rd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi Information Technology Park, Chandigarh – 160101, through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory. ---Opposite Parties.BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Complainant in person. Sh. N.P. Sharma, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1 Sh. Amit Gupta, Adv. Proxy for Sh. Vishal Gupta, Adv. for Opposite Party 2 PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER. 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that he had purchased a brand new Verna CRDI 1.6 car and paid Rs.8,74,700/- vide sale letter dated 19.6.2011 (Annexure C-1). The Complainant in order to get the said vehicle registered with the Registering Authority, submitted the relevant documents on 11 July 2011, which were returned to the Complainant for want of code number of the car, which was to be provided by Opposite Party No. 1 at the time of purchase of the car by the Complainant. On being inquired upon by the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 1 claimed to have told the Complainant that the relevant code number will be issued within 4-5 days before the expiry of the temporary registration number, issued to the Complainant. The Complainant after having waited for a week’s time, again approached Opposite Party No. 1 who repeated the same excuse, and requested to wait for another 4-5 days. The Complainant claims to have arranged the services of a Driver for Rs.8,000/- per month for driving his new car. But as the Opposite Party No. 1 delayed the supply of the code number, for almost 1 ½ months, the Complainant could not bring the said car on road, as the registration of the car was delayed for some reason. The complainant has alleged that Opposite Party No. 1 claimed ignorance as to why the code number is not issued by Opposite Party No.2, well in time, and failed in timely advising the complainant about this issue. The Complainant faced with this situation, approached Opposite Party No. 2, directly, many a times, but was assured that the needful would be done within next 2-3 days, but Opposite Party No. 2 is claimed to have not done anything to help the Complainant. In the meanwhile, the Complainant claims that he had to spent Rs.1,000/- on the phone calls during this period and had also hired a Taxi for local use and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Further, for his visits to Jaipur and Delhi in connection with his business engagements, the Complainant spent another sum of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the Complainant claims to have incurred a total amount of Rs.39,000/- as expenses in the absence of proper registration of his own car. The Complainant served a legal notice dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure C-2) which was served upon the Opposite Party No.1 through FAX. The status report of the FAX is at Annexure C-3, with the complaint. The Complainant claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties has prayed for a compensation of Rs.40,000/- on account of damages and harassment suffered by him at the hands of the Opposite Parties who failed to issue the code number well in time. [2] The Opposite Party No.1 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed as there is no actionable cause against the Opposite Party No. 1, reason being as per information received by Opposite Party No. 1 from Opposite Party No. 2 the manufacturer of the car, the ARAI accorded ARAI certification (Annexure R-1) which is a mandatory document and permission for registration of any brand new vehicle in India, and in the present case the car of the Complainant was issued a certificate on 11.4.2011 which was sent by the Opposite Party No. 2 to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, and the same was duly received by the said Authority at Chandigarh on 17.7.2011. The Opposite Party No.1 claims that there cannot be any occasion for denial of registration of the car in question as claimed by the Complainant, whose temporary number was due to expire on 18.07.2011. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1, as alleged by the Complainant. On merits, the Party No.1 has contested the claim of the Complainant repeating the submissions mentioned in the preliminary objections and claiming that Opposite Party No. 2 was to get the ARAI Certification from the concerned authority which is mandatory for any brand new vehicle manufactured in India. As the said ARAI certification was got on 11.4.2011 by Opposite Party No.2, and the same was to be intimated to Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, and the same was duly done by 17.07.2011. It was incumbent upon the said Authority to start registration process of the new Verna car without any delay or demur of any kind and any delay on the part of the Secretary, State Transport, U.T. Chandigarh, does not give the Complainant any cause of action against the Opposite Party No. 1 as the Complainant himself has failed to implead the State Transport Authority as party to the present complaint. The Opposite Party No. 1 in para 2 of its reply on merits has denied that there was no role for it to play in the issuance of ARAI Certification, nor it was the responsibility of Opposite Party No. 1 to submit the same to the concerned Registering Authority, after the same was certified by ARAI Authorities. Opposite Party No. 1 has also demanded the Complainant to be put to strict proof about his inability to drive the car in question thus engaging a driver for the same, or any hindrance qua the issuance of insurance cover and about the challans so issued by the Local Police. Opposite Party No.1 also claimed that it was the responsibility of the Opposite Party No. 2, that the required mandates, for the registration process of the new car, was to be procured by Opposite Party No.2 the manufacturer of the vehicle. Thus, the claim of the Complainant is denied by Opposite Party No.1 and has prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint, qua it, with costs. [3] The Opposite Party No.2 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is baseless, frivolous and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and is devoid of any merits whatsoever and has further claimed that the present Complaint has been filed to gain undue publicity and to bring disrepute to a well known company like Hyundai Motor India Limited. It is also pointed out by the answering Opposite Party that all the allegations made in the present complaint are against Opposite Party No. 1 and for any reason the liability of the answering Opposite Party being the manufacture of the car in question extends to its warranty obligations alone and error / omission/ misrepresentation, if any, at the time of retail sales of the car on part of the Dealer, cannot be fastened upon the Opposite Party No.2. Admittedly, there is no allegation relating to the performance of the vehicle in question. The answering Opposite Party has cited certain judgments in its defence, namely M/s Flame Gas Services V. Aklesh Kumar Bansal, 1986-94 Supreme Court and National Commission on Consumer Cases at Pg.1404; M/s Hero Honda Ltd. V. K.B. Murleedharan & Anr., 1986-94 (NS) 955, Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. Patel Ramubhai Shanker Lal & Anr., 1986-94 (NS) 437 and Vijay Traders V. Bajaj Auto Ltd., 1995(6) SCC 566. The Opposite Party No. 2 has tendered a copy of Dealership Agreement between the answering Opposite Party and Opposite Party No. 1 which is Annexure - A. The Opposite Party No.2 has also claimed that even if the allegations of the Complainant are taken as gospel truth, the same are made against Opposite Party No. 1 who had allegedly failed to provide the Dealer Code No. registered with the RTO to the Complainant. Thus, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the answering Opposite Party for the alleged acts of omissions of Opposite Party No.1. On merits, the Party No.2 has contested the claim of the Complainant repeating its submissions as made in the preliminary objections. The answering Opposite Party has claimed that the Complainant did not serve any legal notice to it as the address mentioned in the legal notice is only of Opposite Party No. 1. It is alleged that the Complainant had impleaded Opposite Party No. 2 as an after thought. Even the expenses incurred by the Complainant are denied as the Complainant had failed to support his claims with proof. The Opposite Party No. 2 thus prayed for dismissal of the present complaint, qua it, with costs. [4] Parties led their respective evidences. [5] Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. [6] It is the admitted case of the parties that the Complainant had purchased a new Verna car on 19.6.2011 from Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant was issued a Temporary Registration No. valid for a period of one month, and during this period, the vehicle in question was to be got registered with the concerned Registering Authority, the State Transport Authority, U.T, Chandigarh, in the present case. The Complainant was denied the registration of his car on the ground that the Registering Authority did not have the required Code mandatory for the registration of the complainant’s new vehicle by it. The Opposite Party No. 1 in its reply has categorically stated that the said Code was supplied to the Registering Authority on 17.7.2011 by Opposite Party No. 2, and this event has happened just before the expiry of the Temporary Regn. Certificate, which was valid upto 18.7.2011, as the necessary Certification of ARAI Authorities was to be got by Opposite Party No.2, and being in possession of the same, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Party No.2, to forward it to the concerned Registering Authorities. [7] The Opposite Party No. 1 claims that as there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the entire exercise of getting the Certification for the new manufactured car as well as intimating the same to the Registering Authorities was to be done by Opposite Party No. 2 alone. However, this fact has been contested by Opposite Party No. 2 in its reply stating that as per the Dealership Agreement, Opposite Party No. 2 operates with all its dealers on a principal-to-principal basis and any error/ omission, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned Dealer. It is also stated that the liability of the Opposite Party No. 2 is only limited and extends to its warranty obligations alone. [8] The fact that has come to light is that as per Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Rule 126 which speaks as under:- “126. Prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to test. – On and from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Rules, 1993, every [manufacturer or importer] of Motor vehicles other than trailers and semi trailers shall submit the prototype of the vehicle [to be manufactured or imported by him] for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune, or the Central Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP), or the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, and such other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Act and these rules:]” Mandates that manufacturer or importer would subject the motor vehicle for such certification as explained in Rule 126 and as it is made incumbent before it is sold in India. It is also clear from the averments of the complaint, which are supported by an affidavit, that the car of the Complainant could not be registered by the Registering Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, as the Code required for its registration was not supplied to them. In these circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the first hand information about the certification of the vehicle was with the manufacturer, and the vehicle in question was got certified by the manufacturer on 18.3.2011 as per Annexure R-1 which is dated 11.04.2011 and is addressed to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, through which this information was passed on to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.T. Chandigarh by Opposite Party No. 2 and was duly received by State Transport Authority, U.T. Chandigarh on 17.7.2011. This averment is mentioned in para 2 of the affidavit of Sh. Pritam Chand, Administrator of Opposite Party No. 1. This fact makes it amply clear that the ARAI certification which was granted to Opposite Party No.2 on 11.4.2011 was made available to State Transport Authority, U.T. Chandigarh on 17.7.2011 i.e. after a gap of nearly three months. It is difficult for us to comprehend as to how a multi-national company that Opposite Party No. 2, which claims to be of a great repute, sleep over the matter and not intimate the concerned quarters about it, thus subjecting its unsuspecting customers to harassment at the hands of the Registering Authorities at different places. As it is established that the delay in intimating the ARAI certification to the Registering Authority at U.T. Chandigarh lay at the door of Opposite Party No.2, but at the same time, even Opposite Party No. 1 cannot escape its responsibility in having sold the vehicle that was not ready for registration and all responsibilities while selling the vehicle at the customers’ end are to be borne by the Opposite Party No.1 as per the Dealership Agreement through which such responsibilities are automatically shifted to Opposite Party No. 1 on principal-to-principal basis. Though Opposite Party No. 2 has categorically mentioned about having annexed this agreement as Annexure A along with its reply and this fact is repeated in para 2 of their affidavit, but the same could not be located on the file as they have probably failed to submit it, while tendering their evidence. This fact is also reflected in the zimni order dated 6.1.2012. [9] Thus, we feel that while selling the vehicle to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No. 2, along with Opposite Party No. 1 should have made it certain that the registering authorities were duly informed in advance and not that the intimation was made available just before 24 hrs. of the expiry of the temporary registration number of the vehicle of the Complainant. In these circumstances, we feel that having delayed the intimation about the certification code of the vehicle in question, the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 have caused unnecessary harassment to the Complainant. Although the Complainant has failed to substantiate the losses that he had suffered on account of having hired the services of a Driver and having hired a Taxi for his personal use, as such, in the absence of any evidence towards these averments, the same are ignored. [10] Hence, in the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Parties, jointly & severally, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment and agony to the Complainant; [11] The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs 20,000-/, till it is paid. [12] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 08th May, 2012Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
