Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  : 25 of 2017

Date of Institution                      : 22.04.2017

Date of Decision               : 03.02.2019

Makhan Singh son of Mohinder Singh resident of village Saidpur Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. registered office Plot No. H.1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irrunmattukottai,, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram, District Tamil Nadu, 602117 through its M.D,
2. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Regional Office C-113-114, Office suites Elante, First Floor, Industrial and Business Park , Phase-I, Chandigarh 160002 through its Regional Manager,
3. Ahuja Automobiles Daburji Tarn Taran through its Manager,
4. Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road Amritsar through its Manager.

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. M.P. Arora Advocate

For Opposite Parties No. 1,2  Sh. Rajbir Singh Sandhu Advocate

For Opposite Parties No. 3,4  Exparte.

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Makhan Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Hyundai Motors India Ltd. registered office Plot No. H.1, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irrunmattukottai,, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram, District Tamil Nadu, 602117 through its M.D and others (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties to issue the registration certificate of his vehicle immediately and also prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as costs of proceedings.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are dealing with the manufacturing of the vehicle and opposite party No.3 and 4 are authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 is also a branch office of opposite party No.4 which is situated at Adda Daburji. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are responsible for all the acts and deeds of its dealers. Earlier the office of opposite party No.3 was situated at opposite Satkar Palace, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran which was later on shifted to Adda Daburji Tarn Taran. The complainant purchased the vehicle Hyundai i-20 1.2 Magna VTVT BSIV, Chassis No.MALBM51BLGM230513, Engine No.G4LAGM230513 colored Star Dust from the opposite party No.3 vide delivery Challan No.2862 dated 23.03.2016 for his personal use and paid the price of the said vehicle alongwith Insurance and Rs.48,160/- as registration charges of the vehicle . As such, the opposite parties are duty bound to provide the service to the complainant and the complainant is the consumer of opposite parties No.1 to 4. At the time of sale of the vehicle and receiving of the registration charges, the opposite parties assured that they will provide registration certificate within one month from the date of purchase of the said vehicle but in this case, more than one year has passed but the opposite parties have not provided the registration certificate of the said vehicles to the complainant inspite of facts that they have already charged the amount from the complainant for issuing of the Registration Certificate of above said vehicle. The complainant approached the opposite parties many times and requested them to issue Registration Certificate of the said vehicle but they always lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other but till today, the opposite parties have not issued the Registration Certificate to the complainant. The opposite parties charged the registration amount from the complainant and as such are bound to issue the registration certificate to the complainant as the complainant had paid the tax and other charges to the opposite parties applicable on the said date.  After the sale and delivery of the vehicle, it was the duty of the opposite parties to deposit the requisite tax and charges in the office of DTO Tarn Taran for the registration of the vehicle immediately as the complainant was only liable to make the payment of registration charges and taxes which were applicable on the date of purchase of the vehicle and the same had already been paid to the opposite party No.4 at the time of purchase of the vehicle. In this case, the opposite parties have not deposited the tax and other charges in the office of DTO Tarn Taran which they have collected/ charged from the complainant and kept the amount with them for their own use for which the opposite parties were not having any right to keep the said amount with them which was received by the opposite parties from the complainant for the registration of the vehicle. The opposite parties have kept the said amount with them and used the same for its own purpose. The fault, if any, for not depositing the Tax with the authorities in time lies on the part of opposite parties and the complainant cannot be burdened or punished due to the fault on the part of the opposite parties and if any, penalty is levied by the concerned authorities due to late submission, the opposite parties are also liable to pay the same. The complainant came to know that the opposite party No.3 has left the business premised in connivance with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties No. 1, 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against HMIL opposite parties No. 1, 2.  The complaint filed by the complainant and averments made therein against the HMIL opposite parties No. 1, 2 are false, frivolous and vexatious and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is not maintainable against HMIL as the matter in dispute is strictly inter-se the complainant and opposite parties No. 3 and 4. It is further submitted that complainant has failed to prove that HMIL-opposite parties No. 1 and 2  had made any promise or entered into any agreement or has received any consideration as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint. HMIL operates with all its dealers on “Principal to Principal” basis and error/ omission/ misrepresentations etc., if any, at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. Cars are purchased by the concerned dealers, such as, opposite parties No.3 and 4 and others, from HMIL against payment and thereafter, the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers under sale invoice. Liability of HMIL being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited and extends to its performance and warranty obligations only. Since, complainant has not raised any allegations regarding the performance of the car, no deficiency can be attributed against HMIL. The complainant has failed to demonstrate that the HMIL has promised or assured services, which was not fulfilled by it or HMIL was deficient in providing any services. No money from the sale consideration of the vehicle or for any additional service as alleged by the complainant was paid to the HMIL hence, HMIL cannot be held liable for the same. In Para No.6 of the complaint, complainant himself had admitted that money has been paid to opposite party No.3. No cause of action has arisen against HMIL . The present dispute is strictly inter se opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and the complainant. HMIL - opposite parties No. 1 and 2 has no role to play and that it has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party to the present complaint.  On merits, it was pleaded that entire transaction of sale, purchase or alleged additional service was strictly between the complainant and opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have no concern with the same and all the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite parties and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4        Service of the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 was effected in the newspaper but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, consequently the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 were proceeded against exparte. 

5        In order to prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of Makhan Singh Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7, marked C-A, C-B and closed his evidence.  Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1, 2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukomal Satyen Ex. OPs 1,2/ alongwith documents Ex. OPs1,2/2 to Ex. OPs 1,2/3 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 1, 2 and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

7        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are dealing the manufacturing of the vehicle and opposite party No.3 and 4 are authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 is also a branch office of opposite party No.4 which is situated at Adda Daburji. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are responsible for all the acts and deeds of its dealers. Earlier the office of opposite party No.3 was situated at opposite Satkar Palace, Amritsar Road, Tarn Taran which was later on shifted to Adda Daburji Tarn Taran. The complainant purchased the vehicle Hyundai i-20 1.2 Magna VTVT BSIV, Chassis No.MALBM51BLGM230513, Engine No.G4LAGM230513 colored Star Dust from the opposite party No.3 vide delivery Challan No.2862 dated 23.03.2016 for his personal use and paid the price of the said vehicle alongwith Insurance and Rs.48,160/- as registration charges of the vehicle . He further contended that the opposite parties are duty bound to provide the service to the complainant and the complainant is the consumer of opposite parties No.1 to 4. At the time of sale of the vehicle and receiving of the registration charges, the opposite parties assured that they will provide registration certificate within one month from the date of purchase of the said vehicle but in this case, more than one year has passed but the opposite parties have not provided the registration certificate of the said vehicles to the complainant inspite of facts that they have already charged the amount from the complainant for issuing of the Registration Certificate of above said vehicle. He further contended that the complainant approached the opposite parties many times and requested them to issue Registration Certificate of the said vehicle but they always lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other but till today, the opposite parties have not issued the Registration Certificate to the complainant. The opposite parties charged the registration amount from the complainant and as such are bound to issue the registration certificate to the complainant as the complainant had paid the tax and other charges to the opposite parties applicable on the said date.  After the sale and delivery of the vehicle, it was the duty of the opposite parties to deposit the requisite tax and charges in the office of DTO Tarn Taran for the registration of the vehicle immediately as the complainant was only liable to make the payment of registration charges and taxes which were applicable on the date of purchase of the vehicle and the same had already been paid to the opposite party No.4 at the time of purchase of the vehicle. In this case, the opposite parties have not deposited the tax and other charges in the office of DTO Tarn Taran which they have collected/ charged from the complainant and kept the amount with them for their own use for which the opposite parties were not having any right to keep the said amount with them which was received by the opposite parties from the complainant for the registration of the vehicle. The opposite parties have kept the said amount with them and used the same for its own purpose. The fault, if any, for not depositing the Tax with the authorities in time lies on the part of opposite parties and the complainant cannot be burdened or punished due to the fault on the part of the opposite parties and if any, penalty is levied by the concerned authorities due to late submission, the opposite parties are also liable to pay the same. The complainant came to know that the opposite party No.3 has left the business premised in connivance with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.

8        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1, 2 contended that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against HMIL opposite parties No. 1, 2.  The complaint filed by the complainant and averments made therein against the HMIL opposite parties No. 1, 2 are false, frivolous and vexatious and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint is not maintainable against HMIL as the matter in dispute is strictly inter-se the complainant and opposite parties No. 3 and 4. It is further submitted that complainant has failed to prove that HMIL-opposite parties No. 1 and 2  had made any promise or entered into any agreement or has received any consideration as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint. HMIL operates with all its dealers on “Principal to Principal” basis and error/ omission/ misrepresentations etc., if any, at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. Cars are purchased by the concerned dealers, such as, opposite parties No.3 and 4 and others, from HMIL against payment and thereafter, the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers under sale invoice. Liability of HMIL being the manufacturer of the Hyundai cars is limited and extends to its performance and warranty obligations only. Since, complainant has not raised any allegations regarding the performance of the car, no deficiency can be attributed against HMIL. The complainant has failed to demonstrate that the HMIL has promised or assured services, which was not fulfilled by it or HMIL was deficient in providing any services. He further contended that no money from the sale consideration of the vehicle or for any additional service as alleged by the complainant was paid to the HMIL hence, HMIL cannot be held liable for the same. He further contended that in Para No.6 of the complaint, complainant himself had admitted that money has been paid to opposite party No.3. No cause of action has arisen against HMIL . The present dispute is strictly inter se opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and the complainant. HMIL - opposite parties No. 1 and 2 has no role to play and that it has unnecessarily been impleaded as a party to the present complaint.  Ld. counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.

9        In the present case, the complainant has purchased the car Hyundai i-20 1.2 Magna VTVT BSIV from the opposite party No. 3 and the complainant as also placed on record delivery challan  Ex. C-2 which shows that the complainant has purchased the car from the opposite party No. 3. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased the car from the opposite party No. 3 and he has made the full payment including insurance charges and registration charges of the car to the opposite party No. 3 and the complainant has also placed on record some receipts on the record regarding the payment of the same. Later on the opposite party No. 3 left the business and has not deposited the Tax and other charges in the office of DTO Tarn Taran for the registration of the vehicle which the opposite parties have received from the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record newspaper cutting mark CA and CB which shows that proprietor / owner of opposite party 3 left his business after cheating the persons and went to abroad. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 have proceeded against exparte in this case and opposite party No. 1 and 2 have taken stand that the matter in dispute is strictly inter se the complainant and opposite parties No. 3 and 4 and opposite parties No. 1 and 2 had unnecessarily been made a party to the present complaint and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 having nothing to do with the present case. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 were doing the business in the society on behalf of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 as the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 had given the dealership to the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 in the area. Whenever any vehicle was sold by the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 in the area, that was profit of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 also.  The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have also placed on record one document Ex. OP1-2/2, which shows that there is sincerity deposit and vide this document, the dealer agrees to deposit with HMI a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as sincerity deposit operations. Meaning thereby that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have retained the security for giving the dealership to the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. If the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 have left the business and left the country, then the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are liable for the same out the amount of security.  A person who purchased the vehicle cannot enjoy the same without registration certificate. It is not possible for the complainant to drive the vehicle because due to act and conduct of the opposite party No. 3 and 4, as the registration certificate has not been issued to complainant.  We are of the considered view that the complainant can be compensated by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 out of sincerity deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The sincerity deposit is taken by one company, in case of any default. As such, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are liable to indemnify the complainant.

10      In view of a are liable to above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the Tax and other charges i.e. late fee etc. to the concerned DTO office for preparation of Registration Certificate of the car in question and to hand over the Registration certificate of the car in question to the complainant so that the complainant can use the car. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties No. 1, 2, the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only)  as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. Three Thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties No.1 , 2 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.