Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/6/2015

Rohit Pareta s/o Omprkash Pareta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kamal Auto Hyundai Through Manager /Dealer - Opp.Party(s)

Mohasin Khan

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 06/2015

 

Rohit Pareta s/o Omprakash Pareta r/o House No. 281-A, Talwandi, Kota Police station Vigyan Nagar, Kota at present r/o Vodafone (India) Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

1. Kamal Auto Hyundai, through Manager/Dealer Anshul Kasliwal, 82-A, Road No. 4, Inderprastha Industrial Area, Jhalawar Road, Vigyan Nagar, Kota

 

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. through Managing Director , second 5^th & 6^th floor, Corporate office (Bani Building) Plot No. 5, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi.

 

Date of presentation of complaint 19.1.2015

Date of Order 07 .03.2017

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

2

 

Mr. Mohsin Khan counsel for the complainant

Mr. Anant Kasliwal counsel for the non-applicant no.1

Mr.Deepak Pareek counsel for non-applicant no.2

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This complaint has been filed with the contention that the complainant purchased a Hyundai Verna car on 28.3.2012 from the non-applicants. On 20.5.2014 the car get accidental and it was sent for repairs to non-applicant no.1 on 21.5.2014. Rojnamcha entry was also made about the accident. The non-applicant no. 1 has promised to deliver the car on 21.6.2014 after necessary repairs but inspite of various visits the car was not delivered to him. Hence, on 19.7.2014 on-line complaint was lodged with non-applicant no.2 and on 23.7.2014 FIR was lodged with Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota. Thereafter on 26.7.2014 the Manager of non-applicant no.1 informed the police that the car was stolen on 10.7.2014. Hence, the complaint has been filed to get the value of the car and suitable compensation and cost of proceedings.

 

3

 

The contention of the non-applicant no.1 is that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention. The affidavit of Rahul Pateta has not been submitted. After repairs the non-applicant has many time contacted the complainant but he was not ready to pay the remaining amount as the total expenditure on the repairs was Rs. 1,50,701/- whereas the Insurance Company has paid only Rs. 1,27,000/-. He was also ready to replace the car hence, not deficient in service and the complaint should have been dismissed.

 

The non-applicant no.2 has stated that he is not answerable for the deficiency on the part of the non-applicant no.1 as he deals with non-applicant no.1 on principal to principal basis.

 

All the parties entered into evidence. Heard the parties and perused the record of the case. The complainant and non-applicant no.1 has also submitted written arguments.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the complainant has purchased car from non-applicant no.1 and bill Anx. 1 and Debit Note Anx. 2 are placed on record. Ex. 3 is also more than

 

4

 

clear to show that after accident the vehicle was left with non-applicant no.1 on 21.5.2014 and it was promised by non-applicant no.1 to deliver the vehicle on 21.6.2014 but it was not delivered and even the final bill raised by the non-applicant shows that bill was prepared on 7.7.2014 meaning thereby that the car was repaired on 7.7.2014 but this was not handed over to the complainant. Anx. 8 FIR was lodged on behalf of the complainant and it is also clear from Anx. 1 Final Report filed by the police that on 10.7.2014 the vehicle was stolen from the workshop of the non-applicant no.1. Hence, on the above the contention of the complainant is that the non-applicants are deficient in service.

 

The contention of the non-applicant no.1 is that date of delivery is 21.6.2014 was only an estimated date. Be that may be the case but it is clear from Anx. 3 that the vehicle was lying with the non-applicant no.1 and it was repaired only on 7.7.2014 inspite of this it was not delivered to the complainant and it was stolen from the workshop and when car has not been delivered to the complainant, it is deficiency on the part of non-applicant no.1. Further more Anx. 11 final negative report filed by the police station Vigyan Nagar also made it clear that the

 

5

 

vehicle was stolen on 10.7.2014 but matter was informed to the police with delay on 26.7.2014 and further more the fact of theft of the vehicle was not informed to the complainant or to the Insurance Company which has adversely effected the rights of the complainant. It is also admitted on the part of both the parties that for repair claim Rs.1,27,000/- were received by the non-applicant no.1 from insurance company. Hence, in view of the above facts when the vehicle was not delivered to the complainant after repairs, it is deficiency on the part of non-applicant no.1.

 

The contention of the non-applicant no.1 is that affidavit of Rahul Pareta brother of the complainant has not been filed who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident but this has no relevance as there is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was get accidented on 20.5.2014. Hence, in view of the above consideration the complaint is liable to be allowed against non-applicant no.1.

 

The non-applicant no.2 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and there is no allegation of deficiency against non-applicant no.2 Admittedly the vehicle was handed over to non-applicant

 

 

6

 

no.1 and it was stolen from their workshop. Hence, no liability could be fastened on non-applicant no.2.

 

The complainant has asked for the value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.11,04,500/- and non-applicant no.1 has rightly contended that the vehicle was purchased in March 2012 and it was sent to their workshop in May 2014. Hence, the value of the vehicle was depreciated in two years and contention of non-applicant no.1 is that the value of the car was only Rs.5,39,029/-. It is true that the vehicle was purchased in March 2012 and it was left at the service station of the non-applicant no.1 in 2014. Hence, in two years the value must have been depreciated.

 

Hence, in view of the above the complainant is entitled for the value of the vehicle Rs. 8 lakhs only. The amount will further carry interest of 9% from the date of presentation of the complaint i.e. 19.1.2015 till realization. It is also clear from the facts that the complainant remain deprived of the use of the vehicle and he must have to make alternate arrangements. Hence, for mental and physical agony further Rs. 2 lakhs are

 

7

 

granted as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of proceedings. The order should be complied within one month. The complaint is dismissed in favour of non-applicant no.2. In above terms this complaint is allowed.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

nm