APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  17^th   NOVEMBER  2016

ORDER

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 30.11.2010, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeals No. 1386/2007 and 259/2008, vide which, the order dated 13.09.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad  in  Consumer Complaint No. 309/2005, filed by the present respondent no. 2 was modified.

2.      The facts of the case are that the complainant Ms. Sujata Vidhyut Sur purchased a new Wagon-R car by taking loan from the ICICI Bank from the petitioner/opposite party (OP-3) Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., which was the dealer of the manufacturer Maruti Udyog Ltd., arrayed as OPs No. 1 and 2 in the consumer complaint.  The complaint has been filed by the said Ms. Sujata Vidhyut Sur and the Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS), which is a charitable trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.  It has been stated in the consumer complaint that the said car was delivered at the residence of Ms. Sujata Vidhyut Sur on 16.10.2004 without any temporary registration number, but only with their trade certificate number.  The dealer promised to collect the car from the complainant on 18.10.2004 for registration from the Regional Transport Officer.  They also collected a sum of Rs. 1,800/- from the complainant no. 2 on 16.10.2004 for the said purpose.  However, the car was collected by their representative Anand Thakur on 20.10.2004 for taking it to the R.T.O.  The said car is reported to have met with an accident on way to the R.T.O. office.  It is alleged that the said Anand Thakur and one more person Sulay Shah came to the residence of the complainant without the car, which was kept at their showroom and tried to force her to accept the damaged car which could be repaired by them.  However, the complainant refused to take the damaged car, saying that she had made payment to the OP-3 for a new car.  Since the matter could not be resolved, the consumer complaint in question was filed, seeking directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs. 3,94,662/- as the purchase price and other ancillary expenses incurred by the complainant alongwith 12% interest from the date of payment to the OPs and a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost.  It was alleged in the complaint that under Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the holder of a trade certificate could not deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing a written reply before the District Forum in which, they admitted that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant no. 2 on 16.10.2004 at her request and in good faith under trade certificate no. GJ-1-TC-538, and the temporary registration number was awaited and this facility was given to complainant no. 2 in extraordinary circumstances.  It was further stated that the accident had occurred due to the mistake of a cycle rickshaw, which was carrying iron rods and the said iron rods dashed with the car from the side.  The OP stated that the complainant was not entitled to get the value of the car from them and there was no cause of action to file the complaint as there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4.      The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 3,94,662/- to the complainant no. 2 alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation vide their order dated 13.09.2007.  Being aggrieved against the said order, two appeals were filed before the State Commission, one by the OP-3, dealer and the other by the manufacturer, OPs-1 and 2.  Vide impugned order dated 30.11.2010, the appeal filed by the manufacturer M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. was allowed and the award made against them was set aside.  The other appeal was partly allowed and the complainant was directed to return the vehicle to the OP-3, whereafter he was given the liberty to recover the awarded amount from the OP-3.  It is against this order that the OP-3 dealer is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5.      It was stated during arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there had been no deficiency in service on their part in any manner.  They had taken the said car to the house of the complainant as per her wish, on the day as desired by her.  They had also offered their services for taking the car to the R.T.O. for registration purpose.  The said car met with a minor accident only and had since been handed over to the complainant after repairs.  The car was very much with the complainant for her use and hence, the order passed by the consumer fora below directing them to replace the car or to refund its value, was not justified. 

6.      The learned counsel for the respondents, however, stated that the vehicle had been delivered by the OPs to the complainant without registration and hence, there was a violation of Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.  The learned counsel stated that the car had been given back to the complainant.

7.      I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

8.      The main point for consideration in the matter is whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in handing over car to the complainant without temporary or permanent registration having been done, and whether the OPs could be held liable for the replacement of the car or to give its full value to the complainant on account of the accident of the vehicle.

9.      In this regard, the reply filed by the OPs before the District Forum is quite material.  Para ‘2’ of the said reply says as follows:-

                    2.      In reply para 2 of complaint the facts mentioned by the complainants are not true as whole.  The true fact is that the complainant no. 2 has requested the company to deliver the car on 16.10.2004 as there is some significance of the said date and looking to her demand and request and in good faith delivery of Car was given to the complainants on 16.10.2004 at her residence as per request and therefore delivery of Car was given under trade certificate No. GJ-1-TC-538 and the temporary registration number was awaited and this facility was given to the complainant no. 2 in extra ordinary circumstances otherwise opponents are strictly obeying motor vehicles rules.  Further opponents would like to submit that in notice dated 23.11.2004 and 25.10.2004 the issue regarding temporary number has never raised and as such this issue have nothing to do with present complaint.”  

10.    A perusal of the above reply indicates that the OPs have admitted that the vehicle was given to complainant no. 2 in extraordinary circumstances, although the temporary registration number for the same was awaited.  They have stated, however, that the vehicle was delivered on a particular day i.e. 16.10.2004 as according to complainant no. 2, there is some significance of that date.  It is made out, therefore, that although it may be a gesture of good will on the part of the OPs towards the complainant, but they have definitely violated Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, which reads as follows:-

“42. Delivery of vehicle subject to registration.—No holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent.”

11.    It is evident, therefore, that the OPs should not have delivered the vehicle to the complainant without temporary or permanent registration number and hence, violation of Rule 42 on their part is duly proved from their own admission.

12.    In so far as the grant of compensation to the complainant is concerned, it is also admitted in the reply of the OPs that when the vehicle was being taken to the R.T.O. for the purpose of temporary registration, the accident did take place with a cycle rickshaw, although the OPs have stated that temporary registration number had been obtained by that time.  The dispute arose as the complainant insisted on getting a brand new car and not the vehicle damaged during the accident.  It has come on record, however, that the District Forum passed an order on 24.08.2005, directing the OP-3/petitioner to deliver the car after repairing and to ensure that it was in good working condition, subject to the decision in the consumer complaint.  The said car is reported to have been delivered to the complainant accordingly and is in her possession.  In the light of these facts, the order passed by the District Forum, directing the OPs including the manufacturer jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 3,94,662/- as the total value of the car including expenses, to the complainant is not based on any sound, logical reason.  In appeal before the State Commission, the said order was modified and it was stated that the entire liability to make payment in terms of the order of the District Forum shall be upon the petitioner dealer only.  However, given the facts and circumstances of the case, when the vehicle has already been delivered back to the complainant after repairs, there does not seem to be any justification for the award of the whole purchase value of the vehicle to the complainant or to replace the said vehicle with a new one. 

13.    It may be observed here that the petitioners have admitted that the car was delivered at the residence of complainant no. 2 under extraordinary circumstances as per her demand and request and in good faith.  The complainant has nowhere denied that she did not want the delivery of the vehicle on that particular date.  It is clear, therefore, that the petitioners took the extraordinary step to fulfil the desire of the complainant and in the process, committed violation of Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.  The complainant no. 2 is also guilty of contributory negligence, therefore.

14.    Based on the discussion above, this revision petition is partly allowed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 3,94,662/- to the complainants is set aside as there is no proper justification for the award of such an amount when the delivery of the vehicle was made to the complainant after repairs and the use of this vehicle since a long time, has not been denied by the complainant anywhere.  However, since the accident took place while the car was in the custody of the personnel of the petitioner and also considering the violation of Rule 42 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, it is found appropriate that a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is made by the petitioner to the complainant and I order accordingly.  The said amount shall be payable by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the petitioners shall have to pay an interest @ 9% per annum for late payment.  The Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.  There shall be no order as to costs.