BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.91/14.

Date of instt.: 02.05.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 21.04.2016.

Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Kalu Ram, r/o Vill. Peedal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal (Haryana).

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                        Versus

1. Harbhjan Singh, Branch Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra P.P.Automotive Branch at Karnal Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.

2. Deepak Salesman in the Mahindra and Mahindra P.P.Automotive Branch at Karnal Road, Kaithal.

3. The Regional Manager, Regional Office, Mahindera P.P. Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Nirmal Motor Building, Meerut Road, Karnal, Distt. Karnal.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Munish Sikri, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. C.L.Uppal, Advocate for the opposite parties.

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased Mahindra Maximo Mini Van VXBS-111, chassis No.D6J31340, Engine No.MCD6J32865 and TRC No.HR-99-QB(T)/0087 from the Ops for sum of Rs.3,70,000/- vide receipt No.11292 dt. 06.12.2013.  It is alleged that when the Ops delivered the said vehicle to the complainant, the complainant shocked to see the number of mini van was HR99-QB(T)/0085 but the bill which was given by Ops to the complainant in which the temporarily number was written as HR99-QB(T)/0087.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops No.1 & 2 but they asked the complainant that this is only formality and he did not worry anything about their product/Mini Van.  It is further alleged that on the assurance of Ops No.1 & 2, the complainant took the key of Mini Van and gone to his house.  It is further alleged that on the next day when the complainant gone to the shop of spare part for taking the Stereo system, then the Mistri who was present at the shop asked the complainant that was it new vehicle and he said the complainant to see the right side of Mini Van and the left side of his Mini Van.  It is further alleged that both the colours of his van were different and some dent were also seen upon the right side of his Mini Van.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops to replace the said Mini Van with new one but the Ops lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; estoppel; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, it is stated that the vehicle was given a temporary registration No.HR-99-QB(T)/0085, however, due to the clerical mistake of the person concerned, who prepared the bill, the registration number was inadvertently mentioned as HR-99-QB(T)/0087 which was corrected immediately.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence on 01.09.2014.  On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed evidence on 1.10.2014.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that on 05.12.2013 the Ops No.1 & 2 persuaded the complainant for purchase of a mini van and accordingly on 06.12.2013 the complainant met with Ops No.1 & 2 and asked them that he wants to purchase a mini van.  The Ops No.1 & 2 asked the complainant to come at 05.00 p.m. and then a fresh mini van will be given to complainant.  On the assurance of Op No.2, the complainant came at 05.30 p.m. and met with Op No.2, who asked the complainant to fulfill the documents with other formalities and complainant paid the value of mini van amounting to Rs.3,70,000/- to Op No.2 vide receipt No.11292 dt. 06.12.2013 given the detail i.e. Mahindra Maximo Mini Van VXBS-111, chassis No.D6J31340, Engine No.MCD6J32865, colour D-White, TRC No.HR-99-QB(T)0087, Gate Pass No.1123 and asked the complainant kindly wait one hour.  He further argued that at about -8.00 p.m. the Ops gave the mini car with temporary No. HR-99-QB(T)0085 but the complainant shocked to see that in the bill, the temporary number was written as HR-99-QB(T)0087.  The complainant immediately asked the Ops but the Ops said that it was only a formality and don’t worry.  He further argued that on the next day when the complainant had gone to the shop of spare parts for taking Sterio System, then the Mistri present there told the complainant that the colour on right side and left side are different and some dent was also seen on the right side of the van.  The complainant then noticed that the logo of black colour was shown on the left side of the van but there was no said logo on the right side.  The complainant took the photographs of both side of the van.  He further argued that on the next day, the complainant contacted the Ops and the Ops assured that they will do something for him and called the complainant on the next day and in this way, lingered on the matter and ultimately refused to do anything.  He further argued that the Ops have even not issued the bill of mini van to the complainant till today.  He further argued that on 03.01.2014 the complainant sent a notice to the Ops through Sh. Munish Sikri, Adv. but no reply was given by the Ops of the said notice.  He further argued that the Ops have wrongly mentioned the payment in their reply on different dates because the complainant has made the payment of entire amount on 06.12.2013 as is clear from Ex.C3.  He also argued that on 03.01.2014 the complainant had sent a notice to the Ops, whereas the Ops have shown the payment on 03.01.2014, 13.02.2014 and 21.02.2014.  He further argued that the Works Manager, O/o General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal has inspected the vehicle and gave report Ex.PX, wherein he has specifically mentioned that the rear driver side pillar seems to have re-painted.  He further argued that the driver side pillar near sliding door also seems to be re-painted.  He further argued that from the said report, it is clear that the Ops had given a second hand mini van to the complainant, so, they have adopted unfair trade practice and he made request for replacement of the mini van or refund of the actual price alongwith compensation and costs of litigation.      

6.     On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that on 06.12.2013 the complainant came to the Ops for purchase of mini van and deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- as part payment of the cost of vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to him.  The Ops denied the fact that the vehicle was delivered at 08.00 p.m.  However, it is stated that the temporary registration number was written differently due to a clerical mistake.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops also argued that the new vehicle was delivered to the complainant and the complainant after inspecting the same has obtained the same.

7.     In view of pleadings and evidence of the parties, we are of the considered view that the stand taken by the Ops in their reply is contradictory.  On the one hand in para No.3 of the reply, the Ops stated that Rs.40,000/- were paid by the complainant on 06.12.2013, whereas in para No.11, the Ops had stated that Rs.40,000/- were paid on 07.12.2013, Rs.3,14,800/- on 03.01.2014, Rs.15,000/- on 13.02.2014 and Rs.1324/- were paid on 21.02.2014.  The Ops have issued the receipt/challan with regard to receiving the amount of Rs.3,70,000/- on 06.12.2013 as is clear from Ex.C3.  In Ex.C3, the temporary number of the vehicle in question was mentioned as HR-99-QB(T)0087, whereas in the temporary certificate of registration, the temporary registration number is mentioned as HR-99-QB(T)0085, as is clear from Ex.C4.  No doubt, the report Ex.PX of the Works Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal stated that there was no manufacturing/mechanical defects in the vehicle but he has specifically mentioned that the rear driver side pillar seems to have re-painted as seen on 21.12.2015 during inspection and the driver side pillar near sliding door also seems to be re-painted.  The Ops have also failed to place any document regarding issuance of bill to the complainant regarding purchase of the mini van by the complainant. 

8.     From the facts that there were different temporary numbers on the challan and certificate of temporary registration as-well-as from the report of expert that the van was re-painted at right side pillars, we are of the considered view that the mini van was a second hand vehicle, which was given to the complainant by the Ops at the time of sale and the Ops have not issued any bill for the same.  Hence, the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient for providing services to the complainant.

9.     Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the mini van in question of the complainant with a new mini van of the same description and to issue a fresh bill regarding the same for the registration of the vehicle.  However, it is made clear that if the said mini van is not available with the Ops, then the Ops are directed to refund the actual cost of mini van to the complainant.  The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.2200/- (Two thousand two hundred) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.21.04.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.