Haryana

Panchkula

CC/608/2019

KULDEEP. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAURAV VERMA. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

22 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	608 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	06.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	22.11.2023

 

 

Kuldeep s/o Sh. Ran Vijay Singh, R/o Near Basanti Mata Mandir, Gugga Mari, Village Tagra Kaliram, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula(Haryana)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     Gaurav Verma, Owner of Prem Auto Motors, Near Railway        Crossing Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

2.     Prem Auto Motors, Near Railway Crossing Kalka, Tehsil Kalka,    District Panchkula through its Authorized Signatory/ Owner/        Manager Gaurav Verma.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ……Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Het Ram, Authorised representative of the complainant. 

                        Sh. Lavish Arora, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant had visited the Opposite party No.1 (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1), who is owner of Prem Auto Motors, near Railway Crossing Kalka, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula i.e. the opposite party no.2(hereinafter referred to as OP No.2) in connection with the purchase of new scooter i.e. Activa. The OP No.1 told him(the complainant) that showroom price of new Activa was Rs. 64,000/-, charges of registration certificate and number plate, were Rs.4,500/- & 400 respectively  and as such the total amount was stated  as Rs.68,900/-. The Ops No.1 & 2 had assessed  the value of the old scooter, which was in the name of his wife, namely, Smt. Sumitra, as Rs.10,000/-. The complainant had requested the Ops  to arrange the loan amounting to Rs.58,900/- as after deducting the price of Rs.10,000/- of the old scooter from the total price of Rs.68,900/- of new scooter, the amount of loan requirement was of Rs.58,900/-. It is stated that loan was arranged by OPs from HDFC Bank, Pinjore and in this regard, they had obtained his signatures on some blank papers. The loan was sanctioned by the bank and loan amount was transferred in the account of the OP No.1. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant after sanctioning of the loan amount and transfer of the same in OP’s account but the complainant was surprised to know that the Ops had got sanctioned the loan of Rs.79,648/- whereas the actual loan amount required was Rs.58,900/- It is stated that a sum of Rs.76,145/-was transferred by the bank in OP’s account after deducting the bank charges and that the OPs have received an excess amount of Rs.17,245/- from the complainant. The Ops have also made further deduction of Rs.5,000/- on account of the preparation of the registration certificate and number plate of the scooter. It is stated that  the registration certificate of the new scooter  was not got prepared  by the OP’s and because of the same the said activa is lying idle and  unused since 28.04.2019 as the complainant was not able to use the same in the absence of the registration certificate and number plate. The complainant has been paying EMI to HDFC Bank and a sum of Rs.30,380/- has been paid. On 21.09.2019, the complainant had visited the Op’s showroom and made request to provide him the registration certificate of the vehicle but the OPs has paid no attention to his request. Due to the act and conduct on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement, contesting the complaint, by raising the preliminary objections qua the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; he is estopped  by his own act and conduct; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party as HDFC Bank has not been impleaded in the present complaint; the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and suppressed the true material facts. It is submitted that the complainant along with his wife had approached the OPs for purchasing a new scooter i.e. Activa and had made request to arrange the loan facilities. On the request of the complainant and his wife, the official of HDFC Bank, Kalka were contacted and after full discussion with the complainant and his wife, namely, Smt.Sumitra, the complainant had agreed to take the vehicle on loan basis. During discussion, the wife of the complainant had also expressed her willingness to sell her old activa, which was not in good condition and so, the price of the old scooter was told as Rs.5,000/-. The temporary registration certificate of the new scooter was issued in the name of his wife, namely, Mrs.Sumita. The loan documents as well as the documents of the vehicle were also prepared in the name of Smt. Sumitra on 28.04.2019. However, the official of the bank told that the loan would be sanctioned after the perusal of entire file but the wife of the complainant had insisted upon the immediately delivery of the new scooter i.e. activa qua which she was informed that Rs.1,500/- would be charged as advance  delivery charges. The complainant and wife had agreed to pay the advance delivery charges amounting to Rs.1,500/-. It is submitted that at the time of sale of vehicle, the Ops had prepared the rough estimate of the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.68,412/-as price of the vehicle, Rs.5,850/- as Insurance, Rs.4,550/- for accessories, Rs.1,500/- as advance delivery charges, Rs.350/- for endorsement, Rs.300/- for temporary registration certificate and Rs.450/- for Lamination  on the vehicle, total amounting to Rs.81,412/-. Since the amount of Rs.5,000/  was to be adjusted  in the sale of the said vehicle, therefore, as per calculations, the HDFC Bank had sanctioned the loan of Rs.79648/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.76,146/- was transferring to the account of the Ops and the bank has charged Rs.3,502/-(i.e.Rs.1316/-) as further bank processing charges and Rs.2,186/- as premium of Suraksha Kawatch policy for the borrower). As per calculations, the Ops have to receive an amount of Rs.81,412/- from the complainant towards sale of the vehicle but the Ops have received Rs.81,146/ only, thus, the Ops have to receive  Rs.266/- as balance amount. It is submitted that the Ops enquired many times from the HDFC Bank qua the sanction and disbursement of the loan amount, where upon it was conveyed that the loan in the name of wife of the complainant was not feasible and thus, requested to send the necessary papers for sanction of the loan in the name of the complainant and ultimately, loan was sanctioned on 16.05.2019 to the tune of Rs.76,000/- out of which Rs.76,144/- was transferred in the name of OPs. It is submitted that the loan was arranged at the request of the complainant and the new activa was provided to the complainant on 28.04.2019 without receiving any amount from him. It is wrong to allege that any extra amount of Rs.17,245/- was charged by the Ops from the complainant. It is submitted that the customer has to get prepared his registration certificate from the registering authority, wherein the Ops have no role to play and, in case, if any customer is willing to get the vehicle registered, then he has to pay the registration charges but in the present case, no registration charges was deducted from the account of the complainant and his wife. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops No.1 & 2 and thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.Replication to the written statement of the OPs No.1 & 2 was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.The complainant has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has tendered the affidavit Annexure R-A along with document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

5.We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant and the learned counsel of OPs No.1 & 2 and gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by Ops No.1 & 2, minutely and carefully.

6. During arguments, the authorized representative on behalf of the complainant, reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as well as in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) of the complainant and contended that the price of the old scooter was assessed as Rs.10,000/- by Ops vide rough estimate Annexure C-2. It is contended that the price of the old scooter shown as Rs.5,000/- in para no.5 of the Affidavit(Annexure R-A) of OP No.1 is totally wrong and incorrect being against the value assessed by OPs vide their return rough estimate(Annexure C-2) and thus, the OPs adopting unfair trade practice had charged an excess amount from the complainant. The authorized representative further argued that the OPs had sold the activa in question of the old model i.e. year 2018 and thus, it is prayed that the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of Ops has raised the preliminary objections that the HDFC bank, which had extended the loan facility to the complainant qua the vehicle in question, has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non impleadment of the necessary party.

                This objection is rejected because no grievance has been alleged by the complainant against said HDFC Bank, Pinjore. 

                The learned counsel has also raised the next objection that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint.    The learned counsel argued that the new Activa was sold to Mrs. Sumitra, who is the wife of the complainant but she had not filed the present complaint.

                The above objection being devoid of any merit in it, is liable to be rejected because the Sale consideration of Rs.76,140/- was transferred by the HDFC Bank from the loan account no. 50200011805816, as per Annexure R-1, of the complainant and thus, the OPs having received the price of the newly sold scooter from the complainant had the relationship of consumer and service provider with him.  

                The next objection raised by the learned counsel is that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct.

                This objection is also rejected because it has not been clarified by the OPs as to how the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and thus, the preliminary objections as raised by the learned counsel being devoid  of any merit therein are rejected.

8.On merits, the learned counsel reiterated the averments as made in the written statement and refuted the allegations as alleged by the complainant qua charging of excess payment from him. It is vehemently contended that the value of the old scooter in the name of wife of the complainant was assessed as Rs.5,000/- because no junk dealer would paid the value of the  scooter more than Rs.2,500/- or Rs.3,000/-. It is contended that the complainant had not paid any amount qua registration charges as alleged and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed bring frivolous, baseless and meritless.

9.As per the rival contentions raised by the authorized representative on behalf of the complainant and learned counsel for the Ops, the question that arises for adjudication before the Commission, is, whether the OPs had charged the amount, while selling the new Activa in question to the complainant’s wife, in excess of the written rough estimate(Annexure C-2).

10.The details of the payment as made by the complainant as well as shown in rough written estimate (Annexure C-2) vis-a-vis the amount received by OPs, as per their version in para no.5 of the affidavit (Annexure R-A),  is given as under:-

Complainant Annexure C-2	Amount (Rs.)	As per para no.5 of Affidavit of Ops	Amount (Rs.)
Cost of vehicle	68,412	Invoice dated 28.04.2019	68,412
Insurance	5,850	Insurance	5,850
Number Plate	450	-
Temporary number	300	Temporary number	300
Accessories	4,500	Accessories	4,550
Registration certificate	4,500	-	-
	84,012 -100		-
	83,912
ADC	+1500		1500- Advance delivery charges
	85,412 -10,000
Old Vehicle			-5,000
	75,412 700 350		-
		Endorsement	350
Total	76,462	Lamination	450
		Total	76,412
Loan amount = 79,648/-        Paid to OP     = 76,146+5,000                                           =   1,316 Bank processing                                        =    2,186 suraksha policy                      79,648/-
Difference of cost of old vehicle = 5,000/-

 

11.The OPs have not disputed the rough estimate as provided by them to the complainant vide Annexure C-2, wherein the charges against each head has been given. On perusal of the amount shown in the above table, no variance or difference is found qua the cost of the vehicle, insurance premium, charges for temporary number. Further, both the parties have agreed that a sum of Rs.1,500/- was paid by the complainant to Ops as advanced delivery charges. During arguments, the charges amounting to Rs.4,500/- qua fitting of accessories was not pressed. Thus, the difference between the parties remains qua the charges under the head of “number plate” and “the price of old vehicle”, which was admittedly taken by Ops, while selling the new activa in the name of complainant’s wife. In fact, the main difference is qua the assessment of the price of the old scooter. As per rough written estimate(Annexure C-2) provided by OP No.1 to the complainant on 28.04.2019, the price of the old scooter was assessed as Rs.10,000/-, whereas the OPs, in total contradiction of the price shown in the said rough written estimate (Annexure C-2), has averred the price of the old scooter as Rs.5,000/-,  in para no.5 of the affidavit(Annexure R-A). The version of the Ops qua the value of the old scooter as averred in Para no.5 of the Affidavit (Annexure R-A) is out-rightly wrong and incorrect being against there own written version, which is available on record in the shape of Annexure C-2; thus, the Ops had charged a sum of Rs.5,000/- in excess from the complainant.

12. The Ops have denied that the complainant had made any payment i.e. Rs.4,500/- and Rs.450/- qua the preparation of the registration certificate and number plate respectively. As discussed above, the OPs having received the payment of Rs.5,000/- in excess from the complainant was duty bound to get the registration of the vehicle prepared from the Competent Authority but they have failed to provide the copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle to the complainant’s wife. Needless to mention here that registration of a vehicle is necessary as per statutory requirement. Further, as per sale certificate qua activa in question, it has been found that the activa was having the model of year 2018 whereas the same was sold on 28.04.2019 to complainant’s wife. Sh. Gaurav Verma(OP No.1) on asking by the Commission qua the model of the activa in question i.e. year 2018 vis-à-vis the sale of the same on 28.04.2019, stated that no discount was given to the complainant’s wife qua sale of the vehicle, having  model of  previous year. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case,  as discussed above,  we have reached at the irresistible conclusion that the OPs had been deficient while rendering services to the complainant and they are liable, jointly and severally, to compensate the complainant.

13.Coming to relief, it may be mentioned here that the complainant has not alleged any defect in the new scooter(activa) sold to him by the OPs. As the Ops had been found deficient in not providing the registration certificate of a new activa to the complainant, so it would be reasonable and justified to direct the OPs to provide him the registration certificate of the vehicle sold by them to the complainant’s wife from the Competent Authority; accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed with the directions to OPs  to provide the Registration Certificate of the activa in question to the complainant after issuance of the same from the Competent Authority. In this regard, the Ops shall claim no charges from the complainant. However, the complainant will provide all the required documents, which are in his custody, to the Ops, which are required in connection with the preparation of the registration certificate from the Competent Authority. The OPs are also burdened with a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- on  account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

14. The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 22.11.2023

 

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President

 

CC.608 of 2019

Present:             Sh.Het Ram, Authorised representative of the complainant.

                        Sh. Lavish Arora, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                               

 

                       Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 22.11.2023 for orders.

Dt.15.11.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

 

Present:             Sh. Het Ram, Authorised representative of the complainant.  

                        Sh. Lavish Arora, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                                         

 

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2 with costs.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.22.11.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President