Haryana

Kurukshetra

255/2018

Naveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kishiv Motor - Opp.Party(s)

Mohinder Singh

07 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

           Complaint No.255 of 2018

Date of Instt.:29.11.2018

Date of Decision: 07.01.2022.

 

Naveen Kumar son of Sh.Satish Kumar resident of Ram Nagar Colony, Opposite New Grain Market, Ismailabad, Tehsil Pehowa District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1.Kishiv Motor Private Limited c/o Elegant Honda, 9KM Stone, village Khuddi Near to Pearl Ford, Ambala Jagdhari Road, Ambala Haryana – 133104 through its authorized signatory.

2.Elegant Honda, G.T.Road, towards Karnal Pipli Haryana through its authorized signatory.

 

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

             Complaint under Section  12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

                   Ms.Neelam Member.

                 

Present:     Sh.Karan Tanwar Advocate for the complainant.

                 Sh.Mohit Tayal Advocate for the Ops.

 

ORDER

                  

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by Sh.Naveen Kumar   against Kishiv Motors etc -the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint  are that the complainant  was in need of a second hand car and OP  no.2 told the complainant that a vehicle is standing with their dealer i.e. OP no.1 at Ambala and asked the complainant to get the delivery of the said car from Ambala.  The complainant then approached the OP No.1 on the assurance  and request of OP No.2 and purchased old X Cent car bearing registration No. HR1AN-5052 on 6.2.2017 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and the payment of the cost was made in cash through RTGS from the account of the complainant from Pehowa Branch in the account of the complainant bearing No. 0195863000258 of HDFC Bank.  At the time of sale of the said car, the Ops had assured the complainant that they are bound to provide the original keys of the car to the complainant and also assured that all the expenses will be given by the company regarding the transfer of the car in the name of the complainant. The complainant requested the Ops so many times to  get the vehicle transferred in his name and to provide the original keys of the car but the Ops always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. After waiting for a sufficient time, the complainant by making own efforts and his own expenses got the car transferred in his own name. The complainant requested the Ops so many times for giving the expenses incurred on transfer of the said car and also requested for giving original keys but the Ops never tried to solve the matter and also not cared for the genuine request of the complainant to give the original keys of the said car to the complainant. The complainant also got served the legal notice dated 13.4.2018 served through his counsel for providing the pending original keys alongwith expenses so incurred but nothing has been done which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed that the Ops be directed to pay Rs.one lacs alongwith original keys of the vehicle in question and the litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice Ops appeared  and filed their written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant is asking for supply of original second key which was not in possession of OP No.1 and the OP No.1 had requested to the complainant to provide  the second key with the condition that the complainant shall visit the workshop of OP No.1 which is clearly mentioned in reply dated 11.5.2018 “ that  my client/OP is not under any obligation  to get the ownership transferred in favour of your client about the sale of old Xcent  car, so there is no question of any liability and so far as the question of second key of the car is concerned, it was never promised  but still if your client insist about it then my client may arrange  duplicate key, provided you ask your client to visit in the showroom of my client for it.” but the complainant has not visited due to some ego problem, hence no liability nor the complainant has any case in any manner whatsoever because for providing the second key, the OP No.1 has to match some code number without which it is not possible. It  is submitted that the Ops had not promised to give the original keys and it may be arranged and would be arranged subject to visit of the complainant alongwith the car immediately within 7-10 days from the manufacturer which was not impleaded as proper and necessary party. While denying all other allegations, preliminary objections regarding  maintainability, territorial jurisdiction were raised and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, Ops in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 and closed their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant approached the OP No.1 on the assurance and request of OP No.2 and purchased old X Cent car bearing registration No. HR1AN-5052 on 6.2.2017 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and the payment of the cost was made in cash through RTGS from the account of the complainant from Pehowa Branch in the account of the complainant bearing No. 0195863000258 of HDFC Bank.  At the time of sale of the said car, the Ops had assured the complainant that they are bound to provide the original second keys of the car to the complainant and also assured that all the expenses will be given by the company regarding the transfer of the car in the name of the complainant. It is further argued that  complainant requested the Ops so many times to  get the vehicle transferred in his name and to provide the original keys of the car but the Ops always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. After waiting for a sufficient time, the complainant by making own efforts and his own expenses got the car transferred in his own name. The complainant requested the Ops so many times for giving the expenses incurred on transfer of the said car and also requested for giving original keys but the Ops never tried to solve the matter and also not cared for the genuine request of the complainant to give the original keys of the said car to the complainant.

 

8.             The learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued that the complainant is asking for supply of original second key which was not in possession of OP No.1 and the OP No.1 had requested to the complainant to provide  the second key with the condition that the complainant shall visit the workshop of OP No.1 which is clearly mentioned in reply dated 11.5.2018 that  my client/OP is not under any obligation  to get the ownership transferred in favour of your client about the sale of old Xcent  car, so there is no question of any liability and so far as the question of second key of the car is concerned, it was never promised  but still if your client insist about it then my client may arrange  duplicate key, provided you ask your client to visit in the showroom of my client for it.” but the complainant has not visited due to some ego problem, hence no liability nor the complainant has any case in any manner whatsoever because for providing the second key, the OP No.1 has to match some code number without which it is not possible. It  is  argued that the Ops had not promised to give the original keys and it may be arranged and would be arranged subject to visit of the complainant alongwith the car immediately within 7-10 days from the manufacturer which was not impleaded as proper and necessary party.  Thus, it is argued that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

9.             A perusal of the file shows that in this case shows that the complainant purchased a second hand car from the Ops but the Ops failed to give the  original second keys of the said car. The case remained fixed for compromised for some dates but the matter could not be solved by the Ops.  As per admission of the Ops in the written statement, original second Key of the said car was to be given by the Ops but the Ops failed to handover the original second  key to the complainant.  Whatever may be, deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is established in not giving the original second key of the car in question to the complainant. Therefore, deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is made out and the complainant is entitled to receive the second key of the said car to the complainant and the present complaint is liable to be accepted.

 

10.            In view of our above findings and discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to hand over the original second key of the car in question to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.  The Ops shall also pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant  together with Rs.5000/- for the l`111111111111` itigation expenses. It is made clear that if the Ops failed to hand over the original second key of the car in question to the complainant, then the Ops shall pay the compensation of Rs.30000/- instead of R.10,000/- as mentioned above.  The Ops are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days as referred to above, failing which the complainant shall also be entitled to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Ops.  Certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 07.01.2022.

 

                                                                        President.

 

 

                                Member             Member.