Haryana

Mewat

CC/03/2014

MOHD HANIF KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

MUBEEN AHEMED

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: MEWAT AT NUH.

                                                                                                                              Consumer complaint No.03
                                                                                                                               Date of Institution: 25.04.2014
                                                                                                                               Date of Order: 29.04.2016

Mohammad Hanif Khan son of Shri Abdul Sattar, resident of village Kotla, Tehsil and Post office Nuh, District Mewat.
                                                                                                                                        ….Complainant.
                                              Versus

1. Competent Automobiles Company Ltd., Gurgaon Omax Mall, Maruti Show Room, Badshahpur, District Gurgaon. (Correct address noted as  Competent Automobiles Company Ltd., 407 Village Islampur, near Subhash Chowk, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001)

2. Registration Authority, Nuh District Mewat.    

                                                                                                                                  …. Opposite parties.

                                     
                                     Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE     Mr.Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President.
                  Mrs.Urmil Beniwal, Member.

Present:      Mr.Mubeen Ahmad, Advocate for the complainant.
                  Ms.Sapna Sinha, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
                  Mr.A.D.Tanwar, ADA for opposite party No.2.

ORDER       R.S. DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.

                    The facts agitated in complaint in brief are as under:-

 1.            That the complainant-Mohammad Hanif Khan son of Shri Abdul Sattar, resident of village Kotla, Tehsil and Post office Nuh District Mewat had purchased a new Maruti Car Alto K-10 from the opposite party No.1 on 31.12.2011 vide Sale Invoice No. VSL11000817 and Customer ID No. 1117741410.  At the time of purchase of said vehicle Sale Certificate alongwith other relevant documents issued by the opposite party No.1 were given to the complainant.  Then, the complainant applied for registration of the Car to the Registration Authority, Nuh i.e. opposite party No.2 and the same was registered by opposite party No.2 vide registration No. HR27D 3520 on the basis of bills & other documents which were issued by opposite party No.1 without going through the actual Chasis and Engine numbers printed on the vehicle.  The complainant also insured his vehicle with National Insurance Company vide policy No.3510103111-6130554676 and the vehicle was being used by the complainant.         
2.        That after many days, the employees of the opposite party No.1 came to the complainant and said that the Car which is in your name is of Chasis No.MA3EADE1S00306205 and Engine No.K10BN7115962 and not the actual Chasis and Engine number embosed on the car.  They told the complainant that he should get the Car re-registered in his name which he has with him and should get cacelled the registration of car which he originally got registered.  When the complainant carefully checked the chasis and engine numbers of the car both were different from bill and RC.  That the complainant asked the oposite party No.1 that they have cheated him and the car mentioned in the Bill and RC is in your custody and should be given to him and the car which was given to him should be taken back.  But they refused to accept the same.         
3.        That the Maruti Car purchased by the complainant bearing Engine No. K10 BN-7114187 and Chasis No.MA3EADEIS00303973 but at the time of delivery, the opposite party No.1 intentionally delivered a different damaged  and defective car bearing Chasis No.MA3EADE1S00306205 and Engine No.K10BN7115962 to the complainant. 
4.                The complainant alleged that the opposite party No.1 has played fraud with him by wrongly delivered the Car which chasis and engine number are different from the Sale Invoice/Bill. When the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to give him the Car which was to be actually delivered to him and was still standing in your showroom,the opposite party no.1 flately refused to do the same.  The complainant also served a legal notice on the opposite party which remained unreplied.  So, the opposite parties may please be directed to give the actual vehicle/car of the complainant and a compensation of Rs.50,000/-may also be granted.
 5..               After registration of the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties who put their appearance through learned counsels and filed reply of the complaint in question.  The learned counsel of opposite party No.1 at the very outset raised preliminary objections in his reply that the complaint is false and frivolous. The Hon'ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  This complaint does not falls within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Moreover, complaint is time barred.    The opposite party No.1 further in his preliminary objections took the plea that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
6.           In parawise reply, the opposite party No.1 did not dispute the delivery of the car.  It is pleaded that inadvertantly some other car was delivered to the complainant.  On coming to know about this fact, the opposite party informed the complaintant in August, 2012 and the complainant agreed to get this car registered in his name.  The opposite party No.1 completed all the formalities and get the car registered in the name of the complainant and delivered the Registration Certificate alongwith Insurance Policy to him.  The complainant never objected to it at that time.  Now he has filed this complaint just to extract the money from opposite party No.1.  He is not entitled to any relief and it liable to be dismissed.
7.        The learned counsel of opposite party No.2 also raised preliminary objections in his reply that the present complaint is neither maintainable nor tenable in the present form and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint.  Further the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon'ble Forum.  He has not come with clean hands and so the complainant is not entitled for any equitable relief.  That the complainant is liable to pay special costs under Section 35-A of C.P.C for unnecessary harassment and unwarranted litigation.
8.            In parawise reply, the opposite party No.2 denied that they wrongly registered the car of the applicant in the registration record as alleged.  It is submitted that the applicant came to the office of the answering respondent and he submitted the bills of his car and report of District Inspector and as per the bills and report of District Inspector, Nuh, the answering respondent registered the said car in the record of registration and as such the applicant has no locus standi to file the present application. So the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with costs. 
9.        We have gone through the material placed on the file and heard the oral arguments, all submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.
10.        We have pin pointed our decision on the following points which were reveal to us by the documentary evidence as well as oral submissions:-
i)    Issuance of a defective bill by opposite party No.1.
ii)    Negligence of District Inspector ignoring the comparison of actual Chasis and Engine numbers embosed by him and registration form with the said numbers mentioned in the application and Sale Invoice.
iii)    Ignorance and fault on the part of the Registration Authority i.e. opposite party No.2 without comparising embosed numbers and the numbers mentioned in the registration application and Sale Invoice.
iv)    Ignorance and fault on the part of the complainant being careless about this gross mistake.
11.        Our observations leads us to the conclusion, that it is a case of contributory negligence.  However, the initial mistake took birth at the time of issuance of Sale Invoice/bill and this mistake went on at the level of District Inspector, Registration Authority and finally the complainant.  The matter of wrong Chasis and engine number took birth on the date of inspection by the District Inspector and none of them took notice of the same.  But the opposite party No.1 took all remedial measures required to be taken and got changed the RC and amendment in the Insurance Policy.  This act of opposite party No.1 normally should exonerate the opposite party No.1 from any penalty but the fact remains that their mistake at initial stage led to this dispute, even the complainant also sent the legal notice after rectification of the mistake of the records.
12.        On the other hand, the complainant's legal notice was given to the opposite party No.1 when the mistake by them was rectified.  However, this Forum is of the opinion that as the mistake started at the doors of oppoiste party No.1 and went on till the registration of vehicle and till the mistake was rectified, for which the opposite party No.1 is liable to be penalised.
13.        Since the case is of contributory negligence but in view of our observations above, we hereby compensate the complainant and order the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2500/-as litigation charges to the complainant.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.
                    Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room after doing needful.  This order of the Forum is running into 6 pages in total and each and every page of this order has been signed.
Announced in open Court.
29.04.2016

                    
(Urmil Beniwal)                                                                                                                         (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)
     (Member)                                                                                                                                        President,
                                                                                                                                                District Consumer Disputes 
                                                                                                                                            Redressal Forum,Mewat at Nuh