Delhi

East Delhi

CC/31/2018

VINEET GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HIMGIRI CARS - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 31/18

 

Ms. Vineeta Gupta @ Vineeta Shah

W/o Shri Parveen Shah

D/o Shri Prem Kumar Gupta

R/o B-30, Gali No. 2, West Chandar Nagar

Krishna Nagar, Delhi – 110 051                                                 ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Off.: B-99, Wazirpur Industrial Area

New Delhi – 110 052

Also at:

SG-30, Aditya Mega Mall CBD

Near Karkardooma Court

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032

 

2. Mr. Harvinder Singh Sikka

Director – Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.

 

3. Mr. Gurneet Singh Sikka

Director – Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.

 

4. Mr. Anil Goel

Director – Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.

 

5. Ms. Dimple Goel

Director – Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.

 

6. Mr. Gurinder Singh Sikka

Director – Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.

 

7. Mr. Rajesh

Sales Executive/Showroom Manager/AR

Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.

 

8. Mr. Bajaj

Sales Executive/Showroom Manager/AR

Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd.                                Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 25.01.2018

Date of Order : -02.05.2018

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

ORDER:

            The facts of the present complaint are that in the month of July 2015, the complainant alongwith her parents visited OP’s office at SG-30, Aditya Mall CBD, Near Karkardooma court, Shahdara, Delhi – 110032 to purchase Grand i-10 from OP’s showroom.  The complainant agreed to exchange her old Santro Car – L.S. 1.1 make 2003 bearing registration no. DL 2C W 4406.  The old car was delivered to OP on 10.07.2015, and new i-10 Magna, 1.2 bearing registration no. DL 8C AL 0435 was handed over to the complainant on 18.07.2015 vide invoice no. H201500393. 

            It has been stated that the complainant was assured that the old car of the complainant would be transferred in the name of the buyer or OP within 1 month.  Despite, repeated requests, the same was not done.  In the month of March 2017, the complainant was shocked to know that FIR no. 0050/2017 had been registered with Pilua, District Etah, UP under Section 279, 338 and 304A, IPC alleging injury to one Shri Pawan Singh on 02.03.2017 through Santo Car, which was still registered in the name of the complainant.  It has further been stated that the complaint was forced to undergo hardships due to the act of OPs and feeling aggrieved, she lodged a complaint dated 26.03.2017 with P.S. Anand Vihar, vide DD No. 25B. 

            In the month of July/August, 2017, the complaiant received notice of a complaint/motor accident claim filed by legal heirs of deceased Shri Pawan Singh, before MACT/District Judge, Etah, UP.  The complainant has alleged that as OPs have failed to transfer the old vehicle in their name or in the name of new buyer within one month from the date of sale of old vehicle to them, hence, they were jointly and severally liable to be prosecuted for cheating and criminal breach of trust.  Hence, the present complaint with directions to OPs (a) to help the complainant (financially as well as morally), (b) to co-operate with the complainant in deleting her name from the array of parties from FIR no. 0050/2017, registered with P.S. Pilua, District Etah, UP and MACT petition no., 260/2017; (c) to refund the price of the new vehicle alongwith interest @ 18%; (d) to take necessary action against the officers of respondents and (e) pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony, anguish and harassment.

            We have heard the submission on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.  Firstly, deciding on the point of limitation.  As per Annexure A, the delivery receipt, the old Santro car was delivered to OP on 10.07.2015, even in assuming that OP had assured the complainant that the vehicle would be transferred in the name of the OP or new buyer within 1 month, the period of limitation will start from 10.08.2015, but the present complaint has been filed on 25.01.2018 which is beyond a period of 2 years as prescribed under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, the present complaint is barred by limitation.

            Further, as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads as under:-

“Transfer of ownership – (1) where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this -

1. the transferor shall

(i) in the case of vehicle registered within the same State, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the Registering authority within whose jurisdiction, the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously, send a copy of the said report to the transferee.

 

The complainant has placed nothing on record to show that she had reported sale and transfer of vehicle within 14 days to the registering authority, that being so, when the complainant herself was negligent in informing the registering authority, she cannot allege any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

           

Now, coming to the merits of the complainant, the complainant in the prayer clause has sought directions to OPs to help the complainant (financially as well as morally), to co-operate with the complainant in deleting her name from the array of parties from FIR no. 0050/2017, registered with P.S. Pilua, District Etah, UP and MACT petition no., 260/2017.

            No directions pertaining to prayer clause (a) and (b) can be passed by this forum as they are outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act, as far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the complainant has neither alleged nor placed any document on record to show that there was any problem/defect in the new vehicle, thus, refund cannot be ordered.

            According to Section 2(d) “Consumer” means any person who

1. buys any goods -
2. [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration

 

In the instant complaint, the complainant had exchanged her old car in lieu of new car.So, it is not the case of the complainant that she had paid any consideration to OP or availed any services of OP to get the vehicle transferred in the name of transferee.Here she stands in a position of seller qua OP/transferee and therefore she does not fall within the purview of definition of consumer as stated herein above.

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President