Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/83

Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

CM Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Adv.

16 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  83 of 23.12.2016

                                 Date of decision                    :      16.10.2017

 

                   Ajit Singh, aged about 55 years, son of Sh. Gehna Singh, resident of                           VPO Ganguwal, Tehsil Sh. Anandpur Sahib, District Roopnagar.

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. CM Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Rupnagar through its Branch Manager 

2. Maruti Suzuki Head Office, 1- Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110079, through its Head Manager

3.   Maruti Suzuki, Regional Office, SCO 39-40, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager

4.   District Licensing Authority, Roopnagar, through its office Clerk(                      DTO Rupnagar)                                                                                                                                                       ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Pardeep Mittal, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

Sh. S.K. Bhanot, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.2 & 3

O.P. No.4 ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

Sh. Ajit Singh through his counsel 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 ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To bear all the expenses to be spent in the correction of the registration certificate

ii)      To pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment and emotional distress suffered by the complainant due to the negligent

iii)     Any other relief which, this Hon'ble Forum deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the complainant.   

 

2.               In brief the case of the complainant is that the O.P. No.1 is an automobile agency and is the authorized dealer of Maruti Private Limited Company, having its head office at Delhi and regional office at Chandigarh. On 02.06.2014, he purchased a car make Etriga Model VDI BS-IV, manufactured by Maruti Private Limited Company, having registration No.PB-12-T-5875. The said car is having a seating capacity of 7 passengers but the employee of the CM Auto Sales Private Limited i.e. O.P. No.1 had issued a sale certificate by wrongly mentioning the seating capacity of 5 passengers. On the basis of said sale certificate, the registering authority issued a registration certificate mentioning therein the seating capacity of 5 passengers. He got insured the said vehicle vide policy No.88508204 with the IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. In the insurance policy, the seating capacity of passengers had been mentioned as seven. Due to wrong mentioning of seating capacity in the RC, the insurance company refused him to pay the insurance claim. He approached and requested the DTO, Rupnagar, to make the necessary correction in the RC, but DTO concerned refused to do the needful with the plea that the registration certificate was made on the basis of the information written in the sale certificate of the vehicle. Thereafter, he requested the CM auto agency, Rupnagar, for rectification of the mistake committed by its employee while issuing the sale certificate, but it also refused to accede to his request. He again approached the DTO office, Rupnagar and he was told that to get his vehicle registered again by paying tax @ 8% of the total amount of the vehicle. He was pressurized to pay Rs.75,000/- approximately to get corrected the seating capacity of the vehicle mentioned in the RC. Due to wrong mentioning of seating capacity in the sale certificate, issued by the CM Auto Sales Pvt. Limited, he has suffered a huge loss and has gone through a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and also financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

3.               On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable against it. It has unnecessarily been dragged in this case; that it has no concern with the wrong issuance of registration certificate of the vehicle because the complainant had purchased the said vehicle from canteen stores department of Military under the Military quota and the sale certificate (Form No.21) by the Canteen Stores, defence department, Jalandhar, wherein, the seating capacity has been mentioned as 5. On the basis of the said sale certificate, the registering authority had issued the registration certificate. The complainant has not impleaded the Canteen Stores Department of Military, defence department, Jalandhar, as O.P. in the arrays of O.Ps, thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder/mis joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had not purchased the vehicle directly from it, but had purchased the same under Military quota from Canteen Stores, from Military at Jalandhar. The registration certificate was not got prepared through it rather complainant himself got it prepared from the registering authority i.e. O.P. No.4, by submitting the sale certificate (Form No.21), issued by the defence department. The O.P. No.4 had mentioned the seating capacity of the vehicle as 5 in the RC as per sale certificate (form No.21), issued to the complainant by the defence department. In the sale certificate issued by it the seating capacity has been already mentioned as 7, so there is no fault on its part. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

4.               The O.Ps. No.2 & 3 have filed written version taking preliminary objections; that present complaint is bad for non joinder/mis joinder of parties; that the complainant is not a consumer qua it as per section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has no privity of contract with it as he had not paid any consideration amount to them. The vehicle in question had a manufacturer warranty for 24 months or 40,000/- Km whichever is earlier. The vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.3.2014, the warranty of the said vehicle ended on 28.3.2016 by efflux of time, therefore, no obligation was left to be performed by it. Even no specific allegations have been leveled by the complainant against it, as such, no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against them. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

5.               On being put to notice, none appeared on behalf O.P. No.4, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.03.2017.

6.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to C7 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kalia, Manager of CM Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd Ex.OP1/A and copy of copy of sale certificate Ex.OP1/B and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Harshal Arun Choksi (TSM) Maruti Suzuki India Limited Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/1 & Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

7.               We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.               At the outset, the learned counsel for the OP. No.1 has submitted that the  complainant being a defence personal, had purchased the vehicle in question under the military quota and the sale certificate Ex.OP1/B, was issued by the canteen stores department, Jalandhar area depot and not by it as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has not impleaded it in the arrays of opposite parties, thus, the present complaint may kindly be dismissed for mis joinder/nonjoinder of necessary parties. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that no doubt the sale certificate was issued by the canteen stores department, Jalandhar, but from the letter dated 14.6.2017, which he received from the Canteen Stores Department, Jalandhar, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, with regard to information sought by him under RTI Act, it is abundantly clear that the information regarding the vehicle such as engine number, chassies number, horsepower number of cylinder, unloaden weight and seating capacity etc were to be filled in the sale certificate (Form No.21) by the dealer at the time of delivery of the vehicle to the customer and details like vehicle being purchased and name and address of the buyer are given by this office. Due to wrong information given by the CM auto sale private limited i.e. dealer, he could not get the insurance claim and has not only suffered a financial loss but has also gone through a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as prayed for in the complaint. From the letter dated 14.6.2017, Ex.C7, it is evident that as per procedure in vogue, the information regarding engine number, chassie number, horsepower number of cylinder, unloaden weight and seating capacity etc were to be filled in the sale certificate (Form No.21) by the dealer at the time of delivery of the vehicle to the customer and details like vehicle being purchased and name and address of the buyer are given by this office. No document has been placed on record by the O.P. No.1 to show that the details in the sale certificate (Form No.21) were not to be filled in by it. From the perusal of sale certificate, Ex.OP1/B, it is evident that in the column No.9, meant for seating capacity (including Driver) it has been mentioned as five. From the sale certificate (Form No.21) dated 28.3.2014, Ex.C3, wherein the stamp of the CM Auto Sales Private Limited has been affixed, but has not been signed by any authorized person of the CM Auto Sales Private Limited, it is evident that the seating capacity of the vehicle in question is seven. The O.P. No.1 by mentioning the wrong seating capacity of the vehicle in the sale certificate has committed deficiency in service, therefore, we are of the view that the O.P. No.1 shall do all the requisite formalities to get corrected the seating capacity of the vehicle in question in the registration certificate and also deposit the requisite fee for doing the needful with the concerned registration authority, on behalf of the complainant. It shall also compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation expenses. It may be stated that neither any specific allegations has been leveled by the complainant against the O.Ps. No.2 to 4 nor it has been proved. Thus, the complaint filed qua them is liable to be dismissed.

9.               In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against O.Ps. No.2 to 4 and allow the same against O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 is directed in the following manner:-

1. To get corrected the seating capacity of the vehicle in question in the registration certificate and also deposit the requisite fee for doing the needful with the concerned registration authority, on behalf of the complainant.

2. To pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him

3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

          The O.P. No.1 is further directed to comply with the order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties    forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be       indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                   ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                   Dated .16.10.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                     (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                       MEMBER