Delhi

North East

CC/202/2017

Mohamad Javed - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fair Deal Cars Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 202/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mohamad Javed H-170, H-Block, Near- Gurudawara, Nariana Vihar, New Delhi-110028	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.       3.       4.	Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd 485-A, Main G.T Road, Jhilmil, Shahdara, Delhi-110095   Fair Deal Cars Pvt. Ltd. Work Shop ,D-393, Sector-10 Noida-201301(U.P)   Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 1,Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070   Loni Authority Transport Department, District Zonal Code-05 Near Power House, Loni Road, Delhi-110093	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF ORDER      :

20.06.17 02.08.22 26.09.22

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant purchased a car on 03.08.15 from Opposite Party No.1. The Registration Certificate has not been provided to him. It is stated by the Complainant that on 20.07.15 the ICICI bank representative namely      Mr. Kashif and Opposite Party No.1 representative namely Mr. Vipin contacted him and told him that his loan has been passed and he would get the delivery of the booked car on 28.07.15 and they had taken some self attested documents like bank cheque, Id proof, bank statement etc. from him. On 28.07.15, when Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 for the delivery of car in question the officials of Opposite Party No.1 told him to wait and the Complainant waited for 2-3 days. On 03.08.15 the Complainant was contacted for taking the delivery of the said car. The Complainant stated that he contacted Mr. Vipin the official of Opposite Party No.1 and requested him to hand over his car to his friend as the Complainant was not available on that day. The friend of Complainant by giving the balance payment and bank payment got the said car only with invoice and without registration no. and also without temporary no. having chassis no.  MA3FJEB1D00780750 and engine no. D13A2635102 the officials of Opposite Party No.1 also assured the Complainant that they will send the registration of the said car to his house within 2 days. The Complainant stated that he visited the Opposite Party No.1 regarding his registration of the car but he did not get any satisfactory response from the officials of Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged by the Complainant that he made pressure on the Opposite Party No.1 by saying that the insurance of the said car cannot be renewed without the registration of the said car then the manager of Opposite Party No.1 directed one of his officials to get the car registered and also gave Complainant the assurance that the registration of the said car will be done in next 10-15 days. On 16.07.16, the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2 where the manager of Opposite Party No.2 stated him that the Complainant did not provided to the Opposite Party the Id and the address proof and told him to provide him all the relevant documents with Rs. 20,000/- the Complainant protested and called police. The Police official talked to Opposite Party No.2 official and requested the Complainant to wait for some days that he will get the registration without paying any charge. On 23.07.16, when the Complainant visited the Opposite Party they did not give any satisfactory response to him and the Complainant again called the police and stated that the police official also did not take any action against them. The Complainant stated that he did not get any satisfactory response from Opposite Parties so he called on Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. toll free no. 1800 1800 180 and got assurance that his matter would be solved as soon as possible. The Complainant submitted that on 24.09.16 he lodged a written complaint against Opposite Party No.1 in P.S. Seemapuri and sent one copy to DCP GTB Enclave but he did not get any response. The Complainant stated that instead of getting the assurances from Opposite Party -1,2, and 3 he did not get the registration of his car till now and every month an instalment of Rs. 11,519/- is  being recovered against the ICICI bank loan but due to non-registration of the said car the Complainant cannot use the vehicle in question. The Complainant submitted that after 22 months of the purchase of the said car the Complainant did not get the registration. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the refund of the value of the car along with interest @ 24 % p.a. He has also prayed for a compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 filed a common written statement. It is their case that Complainant purchase car from them. They have submitted that Complainant did not provide his address proof which he had got mentioned in the Sale Invoice of the car. It is their case that they have repeatedly requested the Complainant to provide some address proof and thereafter Registration Certificate would be got issued. However, the Complainant did not provide them his address proof so the process of issuing the Registration Certificate of the car. They have denied the allegation of the Complainant and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.4 have separate written statements. Their case is that they have no concern with the sale of the car. They have denied the allegations of the Complainant.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. The Complainant has also filed affidavit of Shri Israr Ahmed, R/o H.No. C-22/F2 , Dilshad Garden Extn.-II Shahibabad, Ghaziabad. He has also supported the case of the Complainant.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6.  In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Shri  Ashok Pradhan, Authorized Representative of the Opposite Party No.1, R/o E-1/1, Gali No.3, Surya Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094 wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. We have perused the written arguments filed on behalf the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file.
8. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a car from the Opposite Party No.1 and delivery of the car was given to his friend Israr who had taken the delivery on his behalf. The case of the Complainant is that the Registration Certificate of the car was not supplied to him despite his several requests and even after lapse of considerable time. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 is that the Complainant did not supply the requisite documents which were required for the registration of the car. It is their case that Complainant did not supply any document regarding his address which he had got mentioned in the Invoice of the car. It is their case that due to non- furnishing of the said address the process of registration of the car could not be done.
9. The Complainant neither in his rejoinder nor in his affidavit given in evidence has stated that he had given his address proof to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 regarding the address which was mentioned in the invoice of the car. The Complainant had filed copy of the Aadhar card in his complaint. The perusal of the address mentioned in the Aadhar card shows that this address is different from the address mentioned in the invoice of the car. Therefore under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that Registration Certificate of the car could not be prepared as the Complainant failed to give his address proof which was mentioned in the invoice of the car.
10. In view of the discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly.
11. Order announced on 26.09.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President