CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

                                            Case No.36/2018

SH. VINOD KUMAR

S/O. SHRI KRISHAN

R/O. H.NO. A-17

MANSA RAM PARK, UTTAM NAGAR

NEAR METRO PILLER NO. 753

NEW DELHI-110059                                                …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

1. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD
   JASOLA, NEW DELHI-110025.

2. GENERAL MANAGER
   PLAZA HYUNDAI, HANA MOTOR PLAZA PVT. LTD.
   A-30, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE
   INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD,
   NEW DELHI-110044.

3. CEV ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.
   D.18/3, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
   PHASE-II, NEW DELHI-110020.                                                     .…..RESPONDENTS

Date of Institution-09.02.2018

Date of Order- 19.01.2023

  O R D E R

RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN-PRESIDENT

1. The complainant purchased a Hyundai i10 Grand on 2.2.2016 from OP2 who is the authorized dealer of OP1.
2. It is stated that the officers of OP2 informed the complainant regarding installing the CNG Kit in his car and also getting endorsed Registration Certificate through the Transport Department of Delhi Government.

3. The OP2 installed the CNG Kit after taking the possession of the car and issued two invoices in favour of the complainant and as per invoices it was OP3 and not OP2 who has installed the CNG kit. On enquiry the complainant was informed that OP3 is the sister company of OP1 and was authorized to install the CNG Kit by the Transport Department of Delhi. The invoices were raised for Rs. 62,120/- only whereas OP3 has charged Rs. 68,850/- stating that the difference of amount is due to installation charges and fees for getting CNG endorsement on the Registration Certificate. The complainant was informed that endorsement of the CNG on the Registration will be done within a month.

4. No information was given to the complainant by OP2 regarding the endorsement on the Registration Certificate, on enquiry he was informed that OP3 could not deposit the entire documents and endorsement could not be done on the Registration Certificate. The complainant was asked to get the endorsement done himself from the concerned Transport Department which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP2 because due to non endorsement of CNG on the Registration Certificate of the car, the complainant could not use the said car and has suffered loses and problems due to negligent act of OP2.

5. The complainant lodged formal complaint on customer care centre of OP1 on 09.01.2018 regarding problem being faced due to act of OP2.
6. The representative of OP1 informed that problem will be solved very soon vide message and e-mail annexure C and D. The complainant came to know that OP3 was authorized to install kit till 24.11.2017 only and the details of the CNG installation were to be sent before 24.11.2017 which were not sent due to negligence on the part of OP and endorsement could not be done. The complainant has therefore, prayed damages for mental agony and refund of Rs. 68,850/- paid for installation of CNG Kit along with interest.

7. OP1 and OP2 have filed written statement. OP3 was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2018. The OP1 in the written statement stated that OP1 being manufacturer of the car is neither necessary nor proper party: the error/ omission if any at the time of retail sale by OP2 is the sole responsibility of concerned dealer and as such there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP1 regarding the dispute in question: that the OP2 is the authorize dealer and not agent of OP1 and there was no privity of contract. The OP1 has no role in installment of CNG Kit and Registration and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1.

8.           In his written statement OP2 has admitted that the complainant approached the OP2 in their workshop therein representation informed the complainant that the fitment and endorsement will be done by third party i.e. OP3 and OP2 would have no role in the said process. Regarding invoices it is stated that the same pertains to OP3 and were handed over to complainant by OP3 only. It is further admitted that OP2 was only a facilitator and everything has been done by OP3.

9. It is further submitted that it was informed to the complainant that endorsement on the RC was to be done by OP3 and the role and services of OP2 would come to an end after installation of CNG Kit. It is therefore stated that there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of OP2. In the replication to the written statement of both the opposite parties the complainant has controverted and denied the averments made therein while reiterating the averments of the complaint.

10. The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit wherein the contents of complaint has been reiterated and documents have been exhibited as under:-

1. Two invoices issued in favour of complainant is exhibited as Ex. CW1/1.
2. Payment receipt of Rs. 68,850/- is exhibited as Ex. CW1/2.
3. Copy of message and e-mail received from the Customer Care Representative of OP1 is exhibit as Ex. CW1/3 and Ex. CW1/4.
4. Circular issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi is exhibited as Ex.CW1/5 (Colly).

11. It is testified that the negligence on the part of opposite parties was that they did not adhere to the regulation of the Transport Department Delhi by not sending the details of the installation on time as a result the complainant was not able to run his car because the endorsement of the CNG on the Registration Certificate could not be done. It is further stated that complainant has suffered mental pain, trauma and agony was entitled to the damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

12. The OP1 in their evidence has also reiterated the same facts as alleged in their reply. Nothing new has been brought on record in evidence by way of affidavit except a Board Resolution is exhibited as Ex. RW1/1, Copy of Dealership Agreement is exhibited as Ex. RW1/2.

13. The OP2 in their evidence by way of affidavit has also reiterated the same facts as stated in their reply. It is stated that when the complainant approached the OP2 he was informed and knew that OP2 was only a facilitator and everything was to be done by OP3. It is further alleged that the role of OP2 came to an end after installation of CNG Kit. It is further stated that after installation of CNG Kit the complainant never visited or contacted OP2 and there was no deficiency of service on the part of OP2 because the endorsement on the RC was to be got done by OP3 only.

14. In the written arguments the complainant has again alleged the same facts as alleged in their complaint and evidence.

15. In the written argument, OP1 has also reiterated the same facts as alleged in their evidence and in addition they relied upon the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Nagender Prasad Sinha III (2009) CPJ 295 (NC) to stress their point that the relations between OP1 and OP2 was on to principal to principal basis and not of as a principal to agent and as such there was no privity of contract between OP1 and OP2 and OP3 regarding the issue in question.

16. It is further argued that the complainant has failed to show that the amount of compensation claimed is commensurate with the alleged losses suffered by him. The OP1 has relied upon the case of National Commission titled as “Surender Kumar Tyagi v. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital & Anr.”  Reported as IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.).

17. During oral arguments the counsel for OP1 has also referred and relied upon the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala and Anr., reported as II (1994) one Supreme Court Case 397. In this case it was held that the relationship between M/S Kartike Gas Agency and Indian Oil Corporation was on principal to principal basis. It was also held that the Indian Oil Corporation would not be liable in any manner in respect of any act or omission on the part of distributor with regard to installation sale distribution connections otherwise.

18. The complainant on the other hand has referred and relied upon the case of Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi reported as 2009 SCC online NCDRC 65 titled as Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Nagender Prasad Sinha & Anr. In this case it was held that the relationship between Maruti Udyog Limited and its dealer was on principal to principal basis and the Maruti Udyog Limited was not liable for any deficiency in service on the part of dealer and it was dealer who was responsible to pay the compensation for delay in delivery to the customer.

19. The Commission have considered oral submissions made by complainant. No one has argued on behalf of OP2 and OP3 however, the written arguments filed by OP2 have been considered.

20. The admitted position which emerges from the material on record is that the complainant has purchased a car Hyundai i10 manufactured by OP1 through its dealer OP2. After purchase of the vehicle the complainant wanted CNG Kit to be fitted in his car and for that purpose he has approached the dealer OP2 who ensured the complainant that the CNG Kit will be fitted. It is the case of the complainant that in the beginning complainant was not informed that the third party OP3 will be involved in fitting of the CNG Kit because the representative OP2 has taken the vehicle in their possession for the said purpose and an amount of Rs. 68,850/- was also paid by the complainant to the representative of OP2. It is alleged on behalf of the complainant that he came to know about OP3 from the two invoices exhibited as Ex. CW1/1 (Colly) dated 21.11.2017.

21.  On perusal of the document exhibited it is noticed that admittedly the receipt of Rs. 67,500/- was issued by OP2 i.e. Plaza Hyundai Hana Motors Plaza Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant i.e. Vinod Kumar who has made payment through credit card. The said payment was received for installation against CNG charges which included Rs. 1,350/- as box charges, vide receipt dated 21.11.2017. The invoices CW1/1 (Colly) dated 21.11.2017 has been issued by OP3 in favour of buyer complainant for CNG Kit/ installation.

22. The said receipt is for Rs. 62,120/- for CNG Kit installation in Hyundai Motor Vehicle. As per the second invoice CW1/1 (Colly) invoice number TI- 0946, the total amount is Rs. 6,923/-.

23. The complainant in his affidavit in para No. 5 has testified that on 21.11.2017 he visited the workshop of OP2 and asked for the procedure for installation of the CNG Kit and also how to get it endorsed on the Registration Certificate; the officers of OP2 informed that they would install the CNG Kit and would also get it endorsed on the Registration Certificate through the Transport Department. It is further submitted that the installation of CNG Kit was done on the same day and two invoices Exhibited CW1/1 were given to him.

24. The officers of OP2 informed on enquiry that OP3 is the sister company of OP1 who is authorized to install CNG Kit by the Transport Department of Delhi. It is further alleged that the officers of the OP2 stated that the endorsement of CNG on the Registration Certificate will be done within a month and same will be handed over to the complainant.

25. The OP2 through its witness Najmal Hasan in his evidence by way of affidavit stated that the complainant was informed about the fitment with endorsement to be done by third party i.e. OP3 and OP2 would have no role whatsoever in the said process. It is further stated that the invoices pertains to OP3 and the OP2 was only a facilitator as everything has to be done by OP3.

26. In para No. 9 of the evidence by way of affidavit it is stated that the endorsement on the RC was to be done by OP3 and the role of services of OP2 would come to an end after installation of CNG Kit.

27. In the entire affidavit nothing is stated about the receipt Ex. CW1/2 dated 21.11.2017 issued by authorized person of OP2. This documentary evidence is contrary to the oral testimony in the affidavit of the witness of OP2. If everything was to be done by OP3, then why the amount was received by OP2 against the receipt?

28. The invoices has been raised by OP3 and the payment for the same has been received by OP2 which shows that OP2 and OP3 both were engaged in getting the CNG Kit installed and the endorsement on the RC. Moreover, the process of Registration of a vehicle is often done by the authorized dealer from whom the vehicle is to be purchased and in this case it is OP2. After installation of CNG Kit which according to the admission in the affidavit of OP2 was also responsibility of OP2, the endorsement in the RC is also the process of installation of CNG Kit.

29.  From the material on the record and the evidence discussed above, it become crystal clear that it is of the OP2 and OP3 who were responsible for installation of CNG Kit against payment already made by the complainant and both were responsible for getting the endorsement in the registration of the car of the complainant. Till the endorsement was done in RC, the process of installation of CNG Kit is not complete.

30.  Admittedly, despite receiving the amount and promising for getting the endorsement in the registration and for installation of CNG Kit, the OP2 and OP3 has failed to get the necessary endorsement done. Unless and until this endorsement was done in the RC the process of installation of CNG Kit in the car of the complainant cannot be said to be complete. These circumstances show that there is deficiency in the service by OP2 and OP3. Moreover, OP3 has chosen not to appear and raise any defense to the averments made in the complaint and the contents of the complaint and the evidence of the complainant is deemed to be admitted qua OP3.

31. The complainant has succeeded in his case. The Commission find that OP2 and OP3 guilty in deficiency in services. Hence under these circumstances and in the interest of justice following directions are passed herein :-

1. OP2 and OP3 are directed to refund an amount of Rs. 68,500/- to the complainant along with @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its date of realization.

2. OP2 and OP3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for deficiency in services and adopting unfair trade practice which caused tension, harassment, and mental agony to the complainant.

3. OP2 and OP3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

31. OP2 and OP3 both are jointly and severely reliable to make the payment of the above amount along with interest to the complainant within a period of 3 months from the date of order.

32. The above order shall be complied within 3 months from the date of order, failing which the OP2 and OP3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the entire amount till actual realization.

33. File be consigned to record room.

(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR)         (RITU GARODIA)      (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN)

           MEMBER                                 MEMBER                      PRESIDENT