Haryana

Ambala

CC/133/2016

Amit Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eakansh Wheels - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Maharishi

25 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

Complaint Case No. : 133  of 2016

Date of Institution    :  09.03.2016

Date of Decision      :  25.01.2018

 

 

Amit Jain, Advocate son of Shri Devinder Kumar Jain, resident of House No.1682, Chowk Darzian, Ambala City.

                                                                                       ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.       EAKANSH WHEELS, Authorised Maruti Suzuki Dealer, K.M.Stone 126, Village Tepla, State Highway No.05, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt-133001, through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

 

2.       MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED, Head Office-Plot No.01, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070, through its  Authorised Signatory.

 

                                                                             ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

Before:        Sh. D.N.Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

         

Present:       Sh. Vivek Maharishi, counsel   for complainant.

                   Sh. U.S.Chauhan, counsel for OP No.1.

Reply of OP No.2 received by Post.

 

ORDER

 

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Car(Sedan). Engine No.K 14BN 7082950, Chassis No.MA 3EXMG ISOO140216 vide Invoice No. VSL 15000153 dated 21.05.2015 on the persistence of the opposite party no.1 i.e. OP No.1 is authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki and  assured that in case of any defect within warranty period, they will get the same either replaced by new one or repaired free of cost without any agitation or hindrance. On purchased of the car, the opposite party no.1 had given warranty of four years. At the time of purchase  of the said car by the complainant and issuing a Invoice to him, the opposite party no.1 was to issue Form  No.20(i.e. application for registration of a Motor Vehicle) to the complainant alongwith other document/papers; but when the complainant requested the opposite party no.1 that the said Form will be issued by the opposite party no.1 within two days without which no tax can be paid by any customer i.e.  the complainant. When the opposite party no.1 failed to issue this Form No.20 to the complainant within two days, then he approached the opposite party no.1 and requested to issue to same; as there was possibility  of increasing  the tax, but the opposite party no.1 did not issue the same and put the complainant off by making excuses on one pretext or the others and the opposite partyno.1 finally issued the said Form on 05.06.2015(Friday) at 17.43.25 and thereafter  the complainant could not deposit his tax on 06.06.2015 and 07.06.2015; due to Saturday and Sunday and on 08.06.2015, when the complainant went to deposit the tax of the said Car, he found that the Tax Window was closed. When the complainant went to deposit the tax of the said Car, he found that the Tax Window was closed. He further stated that when the window was opened, the complainant  again went to deposit his tax, in the meantime, the taxes were increased by the Haryana Govt. by 2% than the existing rate of taxes.

            Therefore, the complainant had purchased his abovesaid Car on 21.05.2015 and the opposite parties failed to issue form no.20 together with all other papers to the complainant; whereas the complainant has been visiting the opposite party no.1 number of times to avoid any complication in the matter of controversy; but the opposite parties did not cooperate the complainant and the opposite  parties issued the said Form no.20 to the complainant on 05.06.2015 after a lapse of 15 days from the purchase of vehicle by the complainant  and as such there is a great  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. So, the complainant served upon legal notice through his counsel on 25.06.2015. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OP No. 1 appeared and tendered written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party, suppression of material facts, no locus standi and cause of action and jurisdiction etc. On merits OP No.1 has submitted that at the time of purchase of car and after making all the payments, the OP No.1 had issued an invoice and other relevant documents to the complainant. All the relevant documents was issued to the complainant by the OP No.1 except Form  No.20 which is requires for registration of motor vehicle as the same was to be issued after submitting all the details of the car in question on the website of Haryana Transport Department by the OP No.1 being the authorized dealer. At the time  of submitting the details of the car in question on the web-site of Haryana Transport Department, the server of the website got down and was not operational at that moment. It would be relevant to mention here that the OP No. 1 has no control on the operation or working of the website of Haryana Transport Department as it is under the control of IT Department of Haryana. He  further stated that the increasing of the tax is not under the control of OP No.1 as well as the complainant . It is a policy of Government of Haryana as and when the Government increases the Motor Vehicle Tax. Even otherwise the policies of the Govt., are confidential and are not are not supposed to circulate in advance to the general public and the complainant himself stated that he has apprehension of possibility of increasing of tax.          

Upon notice OP No. 2, reply by him through registered post and filed written statement submitting that the complainant has purchased the vehicle in question from OP no.1 under a contract for sale of goods (Car Sedan) and entered into an agreement with OP No.1. The relationship between the OP No.1 & 2 is on principal to principal basis as is governed by a Dealership Agreement  executed between OP No.1 & 2. The complainant has admittedly purchased the said vehicle after having mutually settled terms and conditions of sale from OP No.1. The OP No. is not privity to the sale agreement entered between the complainant and OP No.1 The complainant has not paid any amount to OP No.2. The OP No.2 sells the vehicles to its authorized dealers who sell the same to their customers under their own invoice and certificate as per Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It is stated that the entire transactions have taken place between the complainant and OP No.1, to which OP no.2 is not privity. So, counsel for the Ops has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3                      To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-11 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A  and close his evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.1 for amounting of Rs.9,43437/- vide invoice No. VSL 15000153 dated 21.05.2015 as per Annexure C-3 and it is not disputed the last payment of the vehicle was paid on 27.05.2015 as per invoice detail Annexure C-4. It is not disputed sale certificate form and form 22 were issued to the complainant at the time of delivery of vehicle on 21.05.2015. As the matter of facts, Form 20 was not issued to the complainant on date when the other form was issued  and Form 20 was issued to complainant  on 05.06.2015 as per Annexure C-6, the complainant could not deposit the registration charges there was holiday  on 06.06.2015 & 07.06.2015 being Saturday & Sunday. On 08.06.2015 registration charges was increased 2% then the existing of Rate of Taxes.  Complainant had to deposit the extra amount of Rs. 18,870/- to the Registration Authority.

Now question arises in this case why the OP No.1 was issued the Form 20 on 05.06.2015 instead of issuing the Form 20 on 21.05.2015 at the time of delivery of the vehicle and issuing the other relevant documents i.e. sale certificate, form 21 & 22. The OP has taken the plea that all relevant documents given to the complainant on 21.05.2015 except form 20 when is required for registration of motor vehicle as same was to be issued after submitting to all details of car in question on Website of the Haryana Transport Department by OP No.1 being authorized dealer  but at the time of submitting the details of car on the Website of Haryana Transport Department, the server of the Website got down was not operational at that time  & OP No.1 has not control on the operation of working of the Website. The above said plea is not plausible because as per the sale certificate issued on 21.05.2015 but OP No.1 failed to submit the details on Web site of the Transport Department upto 05.06.2015. Lapse on the part of the OP No.1 is to be got done by OP No.1 from the concerned authority but  the complainant cannot suffer due to negligent act of the OP No.1. So, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that OP No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant by paying the difference amount Rs. 18,870/- with interest @ 9% from the date of deposit of the said amount by the complainant to the registration authority till its actual realization. In view of the circumstances of the case, both the parties bear their own cost. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 25.01.2018    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                           (D.N. ARORA)

                                                          Member                            President