Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/624/2017

RAJ KUMAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KC JAMMU HUNDAI MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ GUPTA

06 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No                   240/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution       23-09-2015

 Date of Decision           10-09-2018

 

Raj Kumar Gupta,

S/O Late Sh.Girdhari Lal Gupta,

R/O House No.273 Ext.-1,Lane No.3,

Adarsh Colony,Trikuta Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                     V/S

1.K.C.Hyundai,Through its Managing Director,

  KC Jammu Automart Pvt.Ltd.NH-1 Bye Pass Road,

Opp.Gurudwara Channi Rama,Jammu.

2.Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

Plot No.h-1SIPCOT Industrial Park,

  Irrungattukotai,Sriperumbudur Taluk,Kancheepurum Distt.

 Tamilnadu-602117.

                                                                                                                                  Opposite parties

CORAM

                           Mr.Khalil Choudhar (Distt,& Sessions Judge President

                            Ms.Vijay Angral                                               Member

                           Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                          Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987

 

  Mr.Pankaj Gupta,Advocate,for complainant, present.

 Nemo for OP1.

Mr.Dheeraj Nanda,Advocate for OP2,present.

 

                                                                   ORDER

                                         Grievance of complainant as is discernible from the complaint is that; allured by the advertisement and reputation of OPs in the field of small and big cars, complainant approached OP2 for the purchase of  a Hyundai 120 car,OP1 showed 3 to 4 models of 120 car to him and he selected a model i.e. Hyundai 120 Active SX CRFI and on the assurance/instigation of OP1 about the said model being a best, complainant purchased a Hyundai 120 Active SX CRDI on,20-03-2015 for an amount of Rs.9,01,884/-(copy of receipt is annexed as Annexure-A).According to complainant, the car was delivered to him on the next date i.e.21-03-2015 alongwith Temporary certificate of Registration No.JMU BC 6736,(Delivery receipt and certificate of Hyundai 120 Active SX CRDI of registration are annexed as Annexure-B&C),respectively,but the OP1 showed his inability to issue sale certificate by stating that the system was not working and assured him that the sale certificate will be provided to him within one or two days and the complainant got the said vehicle insured by Bharti Axas General Insurance Co.Ltd.through OP1 for an amount of Rs.26,088/-on the same day i.e.21-03-2015(copy of Insurance Certificate is annexed as Annexure-D).That it is important to mention here that according to Motor Vehicle Rules(Rule 47)complainant was required to submit application for registration within the Regional Transport Officer within seven days from its delivery, but this application is to be accompanied by sale certificate in form 21,insurance certificate and road-worthiness certificate in form 22 to be issued by OP 1,as he is authorized to issue such certificates after getting the vehicle passed from Transport Deptt..Allegation of complainant is that he approached OP1 number of times to get sale certificate & road-worthiness certificate, but OP1 kept delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. Finally complainant approached Sales Manager of OP1 and told him that he needs sale certificate and road-worthiness certificate to get the vehicle registered from RTO Jammu after which the sale certificate dated 13-03-2015 alongwith road-worthiness certificate was issued by OP 1 (copy of sale certificate & road-worthiness certificate are annexed as Annexure E&F)respectively, but complainant was shocked to see that both in form 21 and 22 the model of the vehicle was mentioned as 120 Asta CRDI instead of Hyundai 120 Active SX CRDI and when he enquired about the same from OP1 he was told that the sale certificate is just a formality to get the vehicle registered and they have given same documents to dozens of cars of same model sold by them,thereafter complainant approached RTO Jammu for getting his vehicle registered and paid registration fees through draft of Rs,6300/-of JK Bank Nanak Nagar Jammu vide GR NO.251078 dated 01-05-2015,(copy of receipt is annexed as Annexure-G).Further allegation of complainant is that RTO Jammu refused to register the vehicle of complainant on the ground that Hyundai 120 Active SX CRDFI has not been approved by the  Transport Commissioner J&K.That it is important to mention herein that it is unlawful for a dealer to sell a vehicle without getting it approved by the Transport Commissioner Jammu as is evident from the copy of order annexed with the complaint passed by the Transport Commissioner dated 09-09-2015 which mentions SRO 64 dated 13-02-2012 according to which the selling of vehicles without following introduction procedure and prior to issuance of approval order is an act which attracts suspension of trade certificate until fine of Rs.one lakh is recovered from the delinquent dealer. Complainant further submitted that in the month of August, the vehicle accidently got hit with the wall at the residence of complainant due to which it got many scratches and dents, when complainant approached Insurance Company for claiming insurance, the claim was refused by the Insurance Company by stating that the claim cannot be granted to any vehicle without registration certificate and also told him that only the Ist Temporary Registration Certificate is a valid document and OP has been cheating the complainant by issuing fresh Temporary registration certificate to him. That the complainant has not driven the vehicle after coming to know that the temporary registration certificate of the vehicle is valid for one month and the vehicle of complainant is lying totally useless in the parking of the complainant and the complainant has purchased the vehicle by obtaining loan from the Central Bank of India and is paying huge interest on the loan amount without even using the vehicle for which the loan has been taken thereby causing huge mental agony and harassment to him. That after knowing about the cheating forgery and forgery for the purpose of cheating the complainant, the complainant then approached OP1 who flatly refused to help him by saying that it is not their problem and they cannot help him in any way other than issuing Temporary registration certificate in respect of the vehicle and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant seeks direction to Ops to refund the price of vehicle in question and in addition, also prays for compensation under different heads.

               Notice alongwith copy of complaint was sent to OP1 through registered cover,however,despite lapse of statutory period, OP1 has not taken any action to represent its case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act,so the right of OP1 to file written version was closed vide order dated,15-12-2015.

                           On the other hand,OP2, filed written version and came up with the defence that allegation of complainant that answering OP is selling i20 vehicle without proper approval of Transport Deptt of Jammu & Kashmir is not true hence denied. It is submitted that office of the Transport Commissioner ,Chairperson,Empowered committee,J&K Srinagar vide its order No.155 MVD of 2014 dated 30-10-2014 has duly approved registration of i20 car with its all variant such as Era,Magna,Sportz and Asta.Further,both model of car i.e.Petrol and Diesel has been approved. Complete order having details of technical specification of car approved for sale in the State of J&K is annexed Annexure-1.It is submitted that i20 car sold to complainant is of ASTA CRDI variant having an engine capacity of 1396  CC diesel engine having a gross vehicle weight (GVW)of 1630 mg.It is submitted that vehicle sold to him is same as approved by Transport Commissioner Chairperson, Empowered Standing Committee,J&K Srinagar vide its order No.155 MVD of 2014 dated 30-10-2014.Further OP1 has informed the answering OP that the vehicle in question has already been registered with transport authority and hence there is no cause of action for present complaint. That complainant allegation that he is not able to use the vehicle after purchase is not true. It is submitted on the basis of available record that vehicle in question has already covered mileage of 1700 kms as on 20-07-2015.Further,complainant has alleged non registration of his newly purchased vehicle by transport authority but has not impleaded it as a party for a reason best known to him It is submitted that for proper adjudication of the dispute the concern transport authority needs to be impleaded as party to the present complaint.

                 Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Prateek Gupta.Complainant has placed on record copy of receipt book, copy of delivery receipt, copy of temporary certificate of registration, copy of policy schedule, copy of sale certificate, copy of tax invoice  copy of form 22 and copy of receipt form.

                          On the other hand,OP2  adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of Manish Kumar Deputy Manager Legal & Secretarial with Hyundai Motor India Ltd.OP2 has placed on record copy of order No.155-MVD of 2014 dated 30-10-2014.

                          We have perused case file and heard L/C appearing for the parties at length.

                  Grievance of complainant only revolves around the point that OP1 sold the vehicle to complainant, which could not be registered with the registering authority,therefore,same caused inconvenience,agony,in as much as, same amounts to un fair trade practice. On the other hand,OP2 would submit that the office of Transport Commissioner,Chairperson,Empowered Standing Committee,J&K Srinagar vide its order No.155 MVD of 2014 dated 30-10-2014  has duly approved registration of i20 car with its all variant such as Era,Magna,Sportz and Asta,therefore,there is no point in not registering the vehicle in question.However,L./C for complainant  came up with the version that vehicle in question was purchased by complainant on,12-03-2015,however,said model was approved by the Govt.of Jammu and Kashmir Office of the Transport Commissioner/Chairman Empowered Standing Committee constituted vide order  No.25 MVD of 2015 dated,07-10-2015.As recommended by the Empowered Standing Committee in its meeting held on,17-08-2015,sanction is hereby accorded to the following new type of vehicles for introduction/registration in the Transport System of J&K State into the Commercial/Non-commercial segments shown against each, wherefrom it is clear from column No.5 that the vehicle i20 Active SX CRDI has been proved by the competent authority.

            Further it is also held in the meeting that the Registering Authorities viz:RTO/ARTOs will not entertain registration of any of the above vehicles in case the authorized dealer(Trade Certificate Holder)was found indulging in violation the conditions of clause 17 of SRO 64 dated 13.2.2012 i.e. found to have sold any of the vehicle(s)without following introduction procedure and prior to issue of this order, the Registering Authorities shall put the trade certificate under suspension forthwith till a composite of Rs.1.00 Lakh)Rupees one Lakh only)is recovered from the delinquent dealer.

             Therefore, registration of vehicle is pre requisite for driving the vehicle in any public place or any other place. In the case in hand, allegation of complainant is that he applied for registration immediately after purchase of the vehicle and deposited requisite fee to the tune of Rs.6300/-vide, GR, NO.251078 dated 01-05-2015,copy  whereof is annexed with the complaint(Annexure-G).

                  Once it has been shown that before introduction/registration of vehicle, necessary sanction is required from the Govt.,in that eventuality,OP1 should not have sold the vehicle in question without sanction by the Govt.in the market, knowing well that same requires permission of the Govt.for registration, which is mandatory for plying the vehicle on the road. Selling a vehicle without sanction not only constitutes unfair trade practice, it also amounts to deficiency in service.

                             There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that it is not mandatory that new vehicles  being plied in the State of Jammu & Kashmir is not required to be introduced in the transport system by Empowered Standing Committee, constituted vide order  No.25-MVD of 2015, dated,07-10-2015.Therefore,it emerges that when OP1 sold the vehicle in question  to complainant, same was not approved  by Empowered Standing Committee, resultantly, same could not be registered, rendering the complainant incompetent to drive the vehicle without registration, accordingly, selling of vehicles without its approval by Empowered Standing Committee, in our opinion, amounts to unfair trade practice ,therefore, same calls for interference.

           In view of settled preposition of law, the complainant herein this is entitled to compensation for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony as the vehicle remained parked ideally for a period of five months at the house of complainant because of non registration of vehicle.

               On the other hand, OP1 despite being duly served, failed to take any action to represent the case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OP1 in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 (2) (b) (ii)of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the Op1 omits or fails to take any action to represent the case within the time given by Forum, in that situation the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-Clause (ii) of the Section 11, of Act of 1987, clearly, provides that when OP1 omits or fails to take any action to represent the case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                             Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and OP1 is directed to refund Rs.9,01,884/-(i.e.the cost of vehicle in question)to the complainant.OP1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-.The OP1 shall comply the order within one  month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                         (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                              President

 10-09-2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member        

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member                                                                                     

                

 

                 

 

 

Grievance of complainant only revolves around the point that OP2 sold the vehicle to complainant, which could not be registered with the registering authority,therefore,same caused inconvenience,agony,in as much as, same amounts to un fair trade practice. On the other hand,OP2 would submit that since vehicle in question has been approved under Central Motor Vehicle Rules and ARAI,therefore,there is no point in not registering the vehicle in question.However,OP1&2 i.e. registering authority which are regulating the registration of vehicles in the State of Jammu & Kashmir came up with the version that vehicle in question was purchased by complainant on,12-03-2015,however,said model was approved by Empowered Standing Committee constituted vice order  No.64  TR of 2008 dated,16-10-2008, on,27-07-2011 and thereafter, vehicle was registered as JK02AT-9767.

                              There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that it is not mandatory that new vehicles for  being plied in the State of Jammu & Kashmir is not required to be introduced in the transport system by Empowered Standing Committee, constituted vide order  No.64 -TR  of 2008, dated,16-10-2008.Therefore,it emerges that when OP4 sold the vehicle in question  to complainant, same was not approved  by Empowered Standing Committee, resultantly, same could not be registered, rendering the complainant incompetent to drive the vehicle without registration, accordingly, selling of vehicles without its approval by Empowered Standing Committee, in our opinion, amounts to unfair trade practice ,therefore, same calls for interference.

                      Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and  OP3&4 are directed to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-. OP3&4 are directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of charge. Complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.