CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.798/2008

SH. M.S. QURESHI

S/O SH. BALLU KHAN

R/O 37/1230 DDA FLATS,

MADANGIR,

NEW DELHI-110062

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                                VS.

SH. HRIDAY MALIK, PROPRIETOR,

M/S CAPITAL AUTO MARKETING PVT. LTD./MAX MARKETING

C-56 GROUND FLOOR,

JANGPURA EXTENSION,

NEW DELHI

      …………..RESPONDENT

                                                                                             Date of Order: 09.11.2015

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

            In brief the case of the complainant is that on 26.2.07 he purchased Santro car bearing registration No.DL-8CW0075 model 2003 from OP as OP assured him that the car is in good condition and has done only 32000 km and there is no defect in the car.  It is stated that OP misled him in purchasing the car and in a single day he arranged for loan from the bank and got signed documents from him in his office at 9.30 p.m.  The registration of the car was also transferred in his name.

It is stated that on the service of the car he came to know that the car has already covered about 1 lakh km and that the car required engine overhauling which required expense of Rs.30,000/-.  It is stated that he brought this facts of the notice of OP on 26.6.2008 but OP was not concerned and thereafter he wrote letter to OP on 06.7.2008 but he received no response.  Ultimately be filed the present case before this forum wherein he has prayed for compensation for financial loss and mental harassment suffered by him.

OP in the reply took the plea that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint since complainant has not filed the present claim against the appropriate party as OP is not a trader.  It is stated that OP’s role is merely to arrange the loans for purchase of vehicles.  In the present case also OP has only assisted the complainant in securing loan required for the purchase of car chosen by the complainant.

It is stated that the choice to purchase of the car is entirely of the purchaser and he was free to purchase from any source as he may like.  It is stated that complainant approached them and requested to arrange loan for purchase of second hand 2003 Santro car which was his own choice.

It is state that complainant has finalized the purchase of car in question after thoroughly inspecting it in all respects and after being completely satisfied with the condition of the car, OP has only arranged for loan from ICICI bank on the request of the complainant.  It is stated that as is clear from the letter of loan and payment instruction where it has been mentioned to the complainant that car was in good condition.  The car was purchased by him on as is where is basis  It is stated that he clearly noted on the delivery receipt that he has checked the vehicle thoroughly and is fully satisfied.

In the rejoinder complainant has stated that he was convinced that the car was in good condition and a total mileage shown is 32000 km.  It is further stated that OP after tampering the meter of said car, the total mileage was shown around 32000 km..  The averments made in the WS were denied.

It is submitted by OP that in fact in para 2 of the rejoinder complainant himself stated that OP was an agent and service provider in financing the said car under the name and style of Max Marketing and was operating from C-56 ground floor, Jangpura Extn., New Delhi.  Again at page 6 of the rejoinder, it is stated that complaint has been filed against OP who is service provider of car loan after taking Rs.40,000/- for grant of car loan of Rs.1.70 lakh from ICICI bank on the assurance that condition of the car was good.  It is submitted by OP that in fact he has not taken commission of Rs.40,000/-.  The said amount was given in cash and rest of the amount of Rs.1.70 lakh was arranged by way of loan as the total price was Rs.2.10 lakh.  It is stated that complainant tried to mislead this Forum and he has placed on record slip P-3A showing the mileage of the car as 32000 km.  In fact that was belonging to some other vehicle as the value of that car was Rs.2.32 lakh and the loan amount was Rs.1,77,600/-.  In fact the document which has been referred to by complainant does not belong to this car as neither registration number is mentioned nor chassis number or engine number is mentioned and even the loan amount was more than what is in the present case and price has been Rs.2.32 lakh whereas the price of the car is 2.10 lakh.

We have heard the parties and carefully went through the record.

The only stand of OP is that he has nothing to do with the sale and purchase and helped in arranging loan and there is no deficiency in service on that scope.  Whereas case of the complainant is that the car was sold by OP and OP has assured that the car was in good condition.  OP has referred to form 29 which shows that the owner was M/s Rajat Garments and has sold the car to complainant on 26.2.2007.  OP has also referred to delivery receipt which again shows that the seller is Rajat Garment and purchaser is complainant and wherein it is mentioned that he has checked out the vehicle thoroughly and was fully satisfied and car was sold on as is where is basis.  OP has submitted that he has signed this delivery slip as witness and has nothing to do with the sale of the car. 

In fact it is the OP who has sold the car.  It is a normal practice for the persons who deal in the sale and purchase of old car to obtain signature of seller on blank Form 29 etc. and the name of purchaser is entered at the time of the sale of the car.  OP was not merely the person who has arranged finances, in fact he sold the car to complainant.  It is significant to note that on 16.9.2008 much before filing of the complaint, OP has responded to the notice received by him from Executive Officer, Complaints Redressal Wing.

Reply dated 16.09.2008 is signed by Mr. Hriday Malik on behalf of Capital Auto Marketing Pvt. Ltd..It is evident from this letter which is written byHriday Malk to Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Executive Officer, Complaints Redressal Wing that they have sold the car and received the payment and it is mentioned by him that the car was in good condition.It is significant to note that the complainant has proved on record the documents which he bas collected from Hundai Motors Pvt. Ltd. showing that on 31.5.2008 the mileage of the car was shown as 43221 kms.It supports the contention of the complainant that when he purchased the car, the mileage was shown 32000 kms.He has placed the service of this car for earlier period.On 19.4.2006, this car was taken for service, the mileage was shown as 90805 kms.It was again taken for service on 21.6.2006 and the mileage was shown as 96665 kms meaning thereby that the car had already covered more than 1 lakh kms. when it was sold to complainant.On 21.6.06 the car has done mileage 96665 whereas the car was sold on 26.6.2007 i.e. after 8 months.The meter was tamperedIt is evident from the letter written by Hriday Malik to Nirmal Kumar that the car was with them.Obviously the meter was tampered.There is no reason to disbelieve the complainant that he has purchased car form OP.In fact OP is indulging in unfair trade practices as he gave false representation to complainant that the car has done mileage of 32000 km.In fact it had done more than 1 lakh km. at the time of sale.OP cannot escape from the liability by simply stating that the car was sold on as is where is basis.If the OP was merely a financer whereas the occasion for OP to state in the WS that complainant has apparently finalized the car in question after thoroughly inspecting it in all respects and after being completely satisfied with the condition of the car entered into an agreement.His job was limited for arranging finance for the car who is he to say that the car was accepted by the complainant on as is where is basis.Simply by mentioning that he was witness is of no significance.The delivery was made by him.From reply dated 16.09.2008, it is evident that the car was with the OP and he sold the car to the complainant.

OP has adopted unfair trade practice. 

The complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint and also Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

         (D.R. TAMPTA)                                                           (A.S YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT