DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [COMPLAINT CASE NO.532 OF 2010] Date of Institution :23.08.2010 Date of Decision :14.12.2011 -------------------------------------- (1) Mrs. Ritika wife of Sh. Bhupinder Thakur resident of 404, Sector 15A, Chandigarh. (2) Sh. Bhupinder Thakur son of Sh. Partap Singh Thakur resident of 404, Sector 15A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. VERSUS 1. Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd., 84-85, Industrial Area, U.T., Chandigarh through its Managing Director/Manager/Owner/Authorised Signatory. 2. Fiat India Automobile Private Limited, Corporate Park 2, 5th Floor, Sian Trawbay Road, Chembur, Mumbai – 400071. 3. Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Car Division, 5th Floor, One Forbes Dr. V. B. Gandhi Marg, Mumbai – 400023. (OP No.3 - Deleted vide order dated 3.12.2010). ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Bhupinder Thakur, Complainant No.2 in person and Sh. Mukhbir Singh, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Neeraj Bedi, Authorised Person/Sales Manager O/o OP No.1 and Sh. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for OP No.1. OP No.2 already exparte. OP No.3 – Deleted. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Mrs. Ritika and her husband Sh. Bhupinder Thakur have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Refund a sum of Rs.5,01,148/-; ii) Pay another sum of Rs.9,568/- for the insurance; iii) Pay a sum of Rs.23,703/- paid as E.M.I; iv) Pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs of accessories; v) Interest @18% per annum on the above amounts; vi) Pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as punitive damages for indulging in unfair trade practice; vii) Pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation; viii) Any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief the case of the complainants is that they purchased a Grand Punto car (DI Active BS IV Model make Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. and Tata Motors) from OP No.1 – an authorized dealer of OPs No. 2 & 3, who allotted a Temporary Registration Number valid up to 20.6.2010 to the said car. OP No.1 also handed over to the complainant the relevant documents such as Sale Certificate, Retail Invoice, Insurance Cover Note and Form 22. It is further alleged that on 07.06.2010, after completing all the formalities, the Complainant submitted papers to the Registering Authority, U.T. Chandigarh for registration of the said car with it and for allotment of registration number. The said car was required to be registered with Registration Authority on or before 20.06.2010. It has been alleged that after inspection of the vehicle, the Registration Authority returned the file by putting an objection that the model in question has not been approved by the STA, Chandigarh. According to the complainants, they approached the office of OP No.1, who told them to submit the papers again to the Registration Authority as OPs No.2 and 3 have already submitted the necessary approval from Home Secretary, Chandigarh. According to the complainants, when they again approached the Registration Authority on 28.7.2010 for registration of the car, they were told that the approval letter of BS IV model of Fiat had still not been received from the Secretary, State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh. Upon this, they again approached OP No.1, who refused to cooperate them and advised them to approach OPs No.2 and 3 for getting the necessary approval letter. It has been averred that due to non registration of her car, they had to keep the said car parked and they spent huge money on transportation and suffered huge mental and physical harassment on this account. According to the complainants, sale of car without proper approval from the concerned authority amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP No.1 in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the complaint, has pleaded that it was only a Dealer and not the manufacture of the car, therefore, it had no role to play in the manufacturing, certification and approval for registration of a vehicle. It was asserted that refusal to register the car by the Registration Authority is wrong as OPs No.2 and 3 had already submitted a letter of approval for the sale of the model in question at the time of sale by OP No.1. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 4. OP No.2 – Fiat India Automobile Pvt. Ltd. was duly served through registered letter but none appeared on its behalf and therefore, OP No.2 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.01.2011. 5. OP No.3 – Tata Motors Limited was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 03.12.2010 on the statement made by Sh. Krishan Singla, Advocate for the complainant. 6. The averments made in the complaint stands fortified by the affidavit of the complainant whereas the pleadings of OP No.1 have been supported by the affidavit of Sh. Neeraj Bedi, Authorised Signatory of OP No.1. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the authorised person/Sales Manager of OP No.1 and have perused the record. 8. The only point in controversy between the Parties is whether the OPs had made available the Grand Punto DI Active (BS IV Model) Car in the Market for sale after getting its approval from the relevant authorities i.e. a proper certification of compliance under the relevant Rules by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune and also from the concerned Transport Authority of the State or Union Territory, as the case may be or not? 9. Admittedly, the trouble arose when the Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh refused to register the car of the complainant for want of necessary approval letter from the Transport Authorities. Contrary to this, the stand of the complainant is that the OPs had no right to bring the vehicle of a particular model in the market for sale, without first getting its proper certification from ARAI, Pune and due confirmation and approval from Secretary Home, U.T. Chandigarh, which has clearly not been done by the OPs before selling the car to the complainant. 10. Annexure R-1 is the copy of order dated 02.12.2010 of State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh. From perusal of this document, it is apparent that the required approval was given by the Home Secretary-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh on 02.12.2010 whereas the car was sold to the complainant on 21.05.2010. Thus, the car was sold to the complainant prior to the mandatory approval for registration was given for the said model by the Home Secretary-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh. This amounts to unfair trade practice. Because of the non approval of the said model of the car at the time of sale, the complainant could not get it registered with the concerned Registering Authority and could not ply the same at public place. 11. In the absence of any version of OPs No.2 and 3 on record, who chose not to appear before this Forum and allowed the proceedings to go against them exparte, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs are deficient in service and have indulged in unfair trade practice by selling such a vehicle to the complainant. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the present complainant, on 7.12.2011, Sh. Neeraj Bedi, Authorised person/Sales Manager of OP No.1 made the following statement: - “As per the statement made on 09.11.2011, the OP has obtained the R.C. of the vehicle (Regn. No.CH01AK2346) from the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. No extra documents were needed beyond the original file for obtaining the R.C. OP has spent a sum of Rs.10,570/- from their own ocket for obtaining the RC. This amount has been enhanced from Rs.2600/- to 10570/- w.e.f. Feb., 2011. Documentary evidence of the same is placed on record as Annexure R-x. The valid insurance of the car has also been obtained by the complainant from his own pocket. OP is now willing to hand over the RC to the complainant in the Forum today.” 13. The original R.C. was duly handed over to the complainant by OP No.1 on 7.12.2011 in the Court itself. 14. The statement made above by the authorised Sales Manager of OP No.1 and the factum that registration charges were borne by OP No.1 show that the OP No.1 admitted its deficiency in service and paid the registration charges itself. Thus, the sale of the vehicle prior to the approval of its model given by the State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh amounts to deficiency in service and as also an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. So, the complainants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.75,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment, which was caused to them for non registration of the car for such a long period. In addition to it, they are also entitled to a sum of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 15. As OP No.1 has committed an unfair trade practice, it is liable pay punitive damages in terms of Section 14(d) read with relevant Proviso’s and (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which we assess as Rs.2,00,000/-. 16. Keeping in view the forgoing discussion, the complaint is allowed and the following directions are given to the OPs to :- (i) pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the complainants for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by them; (ii) deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as punitive damages with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T., Chandigarh for adopting unfair trade practice; (iii) pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 17. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within a period of one month from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall pay the sum of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.8.2010, till the date of realization, besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 18. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. 14th December, 2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
