BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.78 of 2015
Date of Instt. 03.03.2015
Date of Decision : 08.02.2016
Anil Kumar Dhir son of Des Raj Dhir R/o H.No.48/2, Gurje Pal Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Goyal Automotive Ltd, GT Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar-144005 through its Managing Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.
2. Hyundai Motors, India Ltd, Plot No.H-1,l SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudur Taluk, District Kancheepuran (Tamial Nadu)-602117.
3. Rajesh Rajput Team Leader C/o Goyal Automotive Limited, GT Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar-144005.
4. Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Office:- Unit No.S.F.2 261, Lajpat Kunj, 2nd Floor, Eminent Hall, Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar-144001.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh.Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.KC Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.MS Sachdeva Adv., counsel for OP No.2.
Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.
Sh.AK Gandhi Adv., counsel for OP No.4.
Order
Ashwani Kumar Mehta (President)
1. Complainant Anil Kumar Dhir filed the present complaint against Goyal Automotive Limited etc opposite party (OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations of deficiency in service, negligence and unfair and deceptive trade practice with a further prayer to direct the OP No.1 to refund Rs.4500/- and to pay claim of the complainant which have been rejected by the OP No.4 insurance company and to award Rs.25000/- as compensation cum punitive damages and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that on the persuasion of OP No.3 who is representative of OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of manufacturer OP No.2, he purchased a new car in question modal Grand 110 SPORTZ1.2 BS IV from OP No.1 and OPs No.1 & 3 offered and assured the complainant to deduct or reduced the bill of the car by Rs.20,000/- on account of exchange of old car and thereupon the complainant purchased the said car on a total cost of Rs.5,25,721/- on 23.5.2014 and amount of Rs.20,000/- was deducted on account of exchange of old car and other accessories charges etc; that complainant was given temporary registration No.PB-08-BY-TEMP-0093 by OP No.1 and was also to issue registration certificate after getting the same from DTO office as per direction of the State Government and OPs No.1 & 3 received Rs.30500/- on account of registration charges for issuance of registration certificate; that the temporary registration number was issued on 22.5.2014 which was valid for 30 days w.e.f 23.5.2014 and copy was also sent to DTO, Jalandhar; that on 24.6.2014, the car in question was involved in a accident and intimation of the accident was given to OP No.1 and also to OP No.4 insurance company and all the documents were submitted by the complainant regarding loss or damage suffered by him due to accident for settlement of own damage claim but OP No.4 vide letter dated 7.8.2014 rejected the claim on the ground that car was not registered with the concerned RTO at the time of accident on 24.6.2014 as the car was got registered with RTO on 16.7.2014; that complainant paid the charges for temporary registration number as well as for permanent registration certificate to OP no.1 and it was responsibility of the OP No.1 to complete and comply all the requirements and formalities in time and to get issued the registration certificate of the car in question from DTO, Jalandhar; that complainant paid Rs.500/- for temporary number and Rs.30500/- for registration certificate to OP No.1 at the time of delivery of car in question and OP No.1 also illegally collected Rs.4500/- towards logistic charges for the allotment of temporary registration number but due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, OP No.1 failed to deposit the registration fee within stipulated period and as such registration number was not allotted to the car in question within stipulated period before the expiry of temporary number though OP No.1 kept and retained the registration charges and road tax etc unauthorizedly and as such OPs No.1 & 3 are to be blamed for non deposit of registration charges/road tax charges and are liable for the consequences of rejection of claim by OP No.4 insurance company; that the act and conduct of the OPs caused loss and suffering to the complainant by the rejection of his claim by OP No.4 insurance company and it caused mental agony, pain and harassment to the complainant and as such complainant is also entitled to compensation. Hence, complaint was filed.
3. After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OPs and OPs No.1 and 3 appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that same is not maintainable and is without any cause of action and unnecessary charges were not taken or claimed by the answering OPs and all the charges taken by the answering OPs are mentioned in the statement of account attached with the written statement and complaint is an afterthought and complainant have suppressed the material facts. On merit, all the allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied being incorrect and it was asserted that complainant took the delivery of the car in question after full satisfaction and no allurement was given to the complainant nor any false assurance was given and amount have been charged from the complainant as per market rate and process. It was denied if amount of Rs.30500/- was given for permanent registration number by the complainant. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were also denied for want of knowledge and being incorrect and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed a written statement contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that no cause of action have arisen to the complainant to file the complaint against the answering OP nor any allegation is leveled in the complaint against the answering OP and answering OP being manufacturer of vehicle have no role in retail sale or registration of vehicle; that the answering OP operates with its dealers on principal to principal basis and error or omission committed at the time of retailing and servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer; that complainant have not leveled any allegation relating to performance of the car manufactured by OP and repair of the car after the accident can be done on chargeable basis which are to be paid either by the insurance company or by the complainant in cash and as such the dispute involved in the complaint is between complainant and insurance company or complainant and OP1 and answering OP NO.2 have no role in the dispute involved in the complaint; that this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no cause of action against the answering OP have taken place within territorial jurisdiction of this Forum; that obligation to provide registration certificate to the customer is the duty of the concerned dealer and as such complainant have the claim only against OP 1 and OP No.4 and not against the answering OP. On merit, the allegations have been denied mostly for want of knowledge and being not concerned with the answering OP and a prayer was made to dismiss the complaint against the answering OP.
5. OP No.4 also appeared through counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complaint is false, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the answering OP by misusing the process of law and to get undue advantages and is not maintainable against the answering OP as answering OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the vehicle was being plied without paying road tax and without registration certificate at the time of accident and as such in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy; that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and have suppressed and misrepresented the material facts; that complainant is not consumer under the Act and complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and complaint involves intricate and complicated questions of facts and voluminous evidence is required for just and final conclusion of the complaint and as such complaint should be referred to the Civil Court. On merit, most of the allegations of the complaint were denied being not concerned with the answering OP and being matter of record though it was admitted that the own damage claim of the car in dispute was filed by the complainant which was rejected by the answering OP as vehicle was being plied without payment of road tax and without registration certificate as the accident took place or loss to the car was caused on 24.6.2014 whereas the car was got registered on 16.7.2014. All other allegations were also denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with cost.
6. All the parties were given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.
7. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 3 has tendered document Ex.OP1&3/A and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for OP No.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP4/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP4/1 to Ex.OP4/20 and closed evidence.
9. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that before purchasing the car, complainant consulted with OP No.3 representative of dealer OP No.1 and complainant was assured that car modal Grand 110 SPORTZ1.2 BS IV is the best car and complainant would be given Rs.20,000/- on account of exchange of old car which would be deducted from the price of the car. He further contended that complainant purchased the said car and paid Rs.5,25,721/- and amount of Rs.20,000/- was adjusted on account of exchange of old car. He further contended that OP No.1 through OP No.3 also obtained Rs.500/- on account of issuance of temporary registration number and Rs.4500/- on account of logistic charges and complainant also paid insurance charges and registration fee for permanent registration certificate. He further contended that complainant paid Rs.30500/- on account of fee of permanent registration certificate and it was duty of the OP No.1 to pay the road tax and other charges to the registration authority within time and to get issue the permanent registration certificate within time as the temporary registration certificate was valid only for one month. He further contended that complainant paid the registration fee and other charges on the date of purchase i.e. 23.5.2014. He further contended that the car in question was involved in accident on 24.6.2014 and complainant filed claim to OP No.4 insurance company but the same was rejected on the ground that permanent registration certificate was not got prepared by the OP No.1 within time and complainant also came to know that even payment was deposited by OP No.1 late on 16.7.2014 and due to deficiency in service and negligence, the claim of the complainant was rejected by OP No.4 insurance company and as such OPs NO.1 & 3 are liable to pay and compensate the complainant against the loss and damage caused to the car in question and amount spent by the complainant on the repair of the damaged car and is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses as complainant suffered harassment and mental tension due to the fault and negligence on the part of the OP No.1 and as such complaint is required to be allowed.
11. The learned counsel for OP No.2 manufacturer contended that manufacturer is liable only against the manufacturing defect in the car in question whereas complainant have admitted that car was damaged due to accident and complainant spent the amount not because of any manufacturing defect but on account of damage caused to the car in the accident. He also contended that even otherwise, the complainant have not claimed any relief against OP No.2 and OP No.2 has been unnecessarily impleaded as party in the complaint and complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
12. The learned counsel for the OP No.4 contended that a automobile vehicle is necessarily required a registration certificate to ply the same on road after payment of registration fee and road tax. He further contended that complainant was issued a temporary registration certificate which was valid only for one month and as such the same was valid till 22.6.2014 as the car was purchased on 23.5.2014. He further contended that permanent registration certificate was prepared and issued on 16.7.2014 as is apparent from copy of registration certificate Ex.OP4/20 and as such the car in question was not having a registration certificate on the date of accident i.e. 24.6.2014 and as such OP No.4 insurance company has rightly rejected the claim case of the complainant in view of law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission in case titled Narinder Singh Vs. New India Insurance Company, Revision Petition No.4951 of 2012 and also in case titled Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II (2012) CPJ 89(NC). He further contended that complainant have impleaded OP No.4 unnecessarily by concealing these facts and as such complaint is required to be dismissed against OP No.4 with cost.
13. The learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 3 contended that complainant was liable to pay the total cost for issuance of permanent registration certificate but full payment of RC was not made by the complainant and an amount of Rs.5000/- was due from complainant which he paid on 15.7.2014 and immediately thereafter OP paid the registration charges and applied for issuance of RC on 16.7.2014 and as such the RC was not issued in time due to fault of the complainant and not due to fault of OPs NO.1 & 3. He further contended that complainant have falsely filed this complaint against OPs No.1 & 3 and same is liable to be dismissed with cost. He also supported his case with case titled C.Rajaram Advocate & Anr Petitioners Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors Respondents decided on 20.4.2012 in the Writ Petition(C) No.8408/2011 vide which the dealer can recover handling charges etc.
14. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased the car modal Grand 110 SPORTZ1.2 BS IV from OP No.1 dealer on 23.5.2014. It is also admitted case of the parties that complainant was to pay for registration fee for issuance of registration certificate to OP No.1 dealer and OP No.1 dealer was to get issued registration certificate for the car in question. Complainant averred in the complaint that amount of Rs.30500/- was paid on account of issuance of registration certificate but no such receipt is proved on the file but the complainant have proved a slip allegedly issued by OP No.3 on behalf of OP No.1 Ex.C8 showing the tentative cost of car and other charges to be received by OP No.1. OPs NO.1 & 3 have not denied much less specifically this receipt Ex.C8. The receipt Ex.C8 shows that the net cost of the car was Rs.4,31,800/- and after adjusting Rs.20,000/- on account of exchange of old car, the amount to be paid by the complainant was Rs.4,11,800/- and after adjusting amount of Rs.10,000/- paid by the complainant in advance, the amount to be paid by complainant was Rs.4,01,800/-. However, the statement of account of complainant Anil Kumar maintained by OP No.1 and proved on the file as Ex.OP1&3/A shows that complainant paid amount of Rs.5,50,721/- on or before 23.5.2014. It means cost of the car as well as other charges including registration certificate charges were received by OP No.1 on or before 23.5.2014 and cost for registration certificate is also reflected in receipt Ex.C8 which is in the handwriting of OP No.3 representative of OP No.1. As such OP No.1 had received the registration certificate fee before 23.5.2014 but he deposited the registration certificate fee with the registration authority only on 16.7.2014 as is even apparent from statement of account Ex.OP1&3/A. Otherwise OP No.1 was required to deposit the registration fee with registration authority immediately after the sale of the car for the purpose of depositing road tax, registration fee etc so that registration certificate be issued to the car in question within time but OP No.1 deposited the registration fee, road tax etc only on 16.7.2014 and it shows deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP No.1 which resulted in rejection of the insurance claim of the complainant. The insurance claim of the complainant was rejected not because of any fault on the part of the complainant but because of deficiency in service, negligence etc on the part of OP No.1. In this eventuality, OP No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP No.1. Otherwise OPs No.2 & 4 are not liable in the complaint as no relief has been claimed by complainant against OP No.2 manufacturer of car in question and OP No.4 have rightly rejected the insurance claim of the complainant and moreover complainant have also not claimed any relief against OP No.4 and as such only OP No.1 is liable under the complaint to compensate the complainant.
15. In the light of above discussion, the complaint succeed and same is hereby allowed with cost only against OP No.1 as OP No.3 is also representative of OP No.1. Complaint is however dismissed against OPs No.2 & 4. OP No.1 is directed to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him in the repair of the car after the accident took place on 24.6.2014 and OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. OP No.1 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Ashwani Kumar Mehta
08.02.2016 Member Member President
