BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case  No :  34 of 2012

Date of Institution :  16.01.2012

Date of  Decision   :  09.07.2012

Surinder Gandhi son of Sh.Harbans Lal Gandhi, resident of House No.195, Sector 49-A. Advocate Enclave, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1]  KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., 181/3-B, Industrial Area, near Tribune Chowk, Phase-I, Chandgiarh, through its Managing Director.

2]  Hyundai Motors India Limited, through its Managing Director, Plot No.14-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudur, TALUK, Kancheepuram, Distt. Tamilnadu.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:  Sh.P.D. GOEL              PRESIDENT

SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL        MEMBER

          DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA          MEMBER

Argued by:    Complainant in person.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Ankush Kalia, Counsel for OP No.2.

PER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

        The facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Hyundai Verna CRDi 1.4 Car from OP No.1 after paying full & final amount on 20.6.2011 (Ann.C-1), but even then OP-1 failed to give delivery of the car for about four days.  It was ultimately delivered to the complainant on 24.6.011 vide Ann.C-2.

         It is averred that the complainant do not want to purchase the vehicle with Navigator (GPS System), but the OP insisted that it is necessary to purchase this accessory along with the vehicle. As such, the complainant had to make extra payment for GPS System.  He had already deposited the full & final payment with OP-1. 

         As per relevant rules, the complainant was to get the vehicle registered with the concerned State Transport Authority, within a period of 30 days from the date of purchase, but he could not get it registered within the said period, inspite of completing all necessary documents, because the file was returned by STA, Chandigarh, stating that the model of the car in question has not been approved.  The complainant bring this matter to the notice of OP No.1, who supplied a copy of the certificate (Ann.C-3) on 18.7.2011, stating therein, that it has no concerned with the issue of registration with STA and the same is between Hyundai Motors India Limited and Licensing Authority, U.T., Chandigarh only.  As such, the complainant failed to get the vehicle registered with the STA, Chandigarh within the stipulated time. The vehicle was ultimately registered on 26.8.2011 (Ann.C-4). Thus, the complainant failed to use the car for about 1½ Months due to the said deficient act sand Unfair Trade Practice, on the part of OP-1. 

         It is pleaded that the wind sheet glass of the vehicle was damaged, so the complainant visited OP-1 on 30.11.2011 for repair/replacement and left the vehicle along with key.  But the OP-1 did not repair the car inspite of several visits. The complainant needed the vehicle urgently, thus, requested OP No.1 to handover the vehicle on 3.12.2011.  At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant noticed that the GPS Navigator System of the car was missing.  It was reported to OP-1, who assured to take the help of CCTV installed in the premises. OP-1 also assured to provide the new GPS Systems, as such sent a Mechanic to install the new GPS System, but he installed inferior GPS System costing Rs.9990/-, whereas the earlier GPS System was of  Rs.14990/-. 

         Alleging the above acts & conducts of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, due to which the complainant has to suffer a lot, hence the present complaint has been filed.   

2]       OP NO.1, in its reply, stated that the payment was cleared on 24.6.2011 and thereafter the delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant (Ann.OP-1, OP-1/1 & OP-1/2).  The complainant made the request for purchase of navigator and the same was fitted on 25.6.2011, for which Rs.12,500/- was charged vide Ann.OP-1/3. The GPS navigator was received by the complainant on 7.12.2011 (Ann.OP-1/4). The MRP of the navigator sold to the complainant is Rs.16,490/- (Ann.OP-1/5), which proves that the navigator now fitted in his car is of much higher then earlier one.

         It is submitted that OP No.1 is in no way concerned with the approval of the Model by STA, as the same is the duty of the Manufacturer i.e. OP-2. The answering OP is only a dealer and not the manufacturer. Moreover, the complainant has not attached any document to show that the registration was ever refused by the Registering Authority.  Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

         OP-2 filed reply, stating therein, that the complainant is not a consumer qua it as neither any amount is paid to it nor any assurance was made by it. The dispute is between the complainant and OP-1/Dealer.  It is stated that the answering OP is the manufacturer of all Hyundai Cars and OP-1 is an authorized dealer of answering OP on a principal to principal basis.  It is further stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that registration of vehicle was refused by the authority as alleged. More so, the registration of the vehicle is not the responsibility of answering OP. It is the dealer, who is responsible for the registration of the vehicle sold by it and not the manufacturer. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

5]       The main grouse of the complainant, in the present complaint, is that the unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is to the extent, that they firstly sold the vehicle in question, which has not been approved by the S.T.A., Chandigarh and secondly the complainant was forced to purchase the GPS system along with other accessories, for which he reluctantly made the payment. Resultantly, the State Transport Authority, refused to register the vehicle, due to its non-approval. 

6]       On the other hand, the OP No.1, in its written statement, has averred that other persons, who had purchased the same vehicle along with the complainant, have got the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. Moreover, it is the duty of the Manufacturer/OP-2 and not of the Dealer/OP-1 to get the vehicle approved from the competent authority.  The OP No.1 vehemently denied that the complainant was compelled to purchase the GPS system.  Rather, it was the complainant, who purchased it and got it fixed in the car vide Ann.OP-1/3 & OP-1/4. 

7]       The OP No.2 has submitted that the answering OP operates with all its dealers on a principal-to-principal basis and any errors or omissions, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing of the car, is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer.  It is also submitted that the liability of OP No.2, being the manufacturer, is limited to its warranty obligations alone.  Above all, the complainant has not leveled even a single allegation or made any averment against OP No.2 i.e. manufacturer in its complaint.

8]      After carefully going through the facts & circumstances of the present complaint as well as carefully perusing the documents placed on file by both the parties; in order to clinch the matter in dispute, it has been made out that the crux of the problem lies on the material fact that whether the vehicle was duly approved with the State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh, on the date of its sale to the complainant by the OPs or not.

9]       Annexure C-1 is the invoice dated 20.6.2011 and Ann.C-2 is the Delivery Receipt, which proves that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 20.6.2011. Whereas, Ann.C-3 is a Certificate issued by OP NO.1 – KLG Hyundai, wherein it has specifically been mentioned that:-

    ‘This is to certify that Hyundai New Verna Fluidic is not getting Registered due to some unavoidable reasons of Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T., Chandigarh.

    The Authority will start Registering the Hyundai New Verna Fluidic after 10^th August 2011 (Tentative Date) as per the last meeting held with the Registering and Licensing Authorities…..’

10]      From Annexure C-3, it is crystal clear that the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant by the OP-1 without getting it approved from the State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh, as a result it could not be registered well in time.

11]      Furthermore, it is covered matter, hence reliance has been placed on the judgment of our own State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, in F.A. No.27 of 2012 – Joshi AutoZone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ritika & Ors., decided on 14.5.2012 wherein it has been held that that the approval of State Transport Authority, before launching the model of the car, is required.   

12]      In the instant case, it has been established that the approval from the State Transport Authority was obtained after the sale of the car in question by the OPs. The factual condition/situation of the present case is also similar one as has been decided by our own State Commission, U.T., Chandigarh, in the above cited case.

13]      In the given situation, it is held that the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant, by the OPs, prior to the grant of mandatory approval for launching of such model of the car, by the State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh.

14]     Henceforth, judged from any angle, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the OPs were not only negligent & deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant but they also indulged into an unfair trade practice. Therefore, there is lot of merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. Thus, the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to jointly & severally pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental & physical harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

         This order be complied with by OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be jointly & severally liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 16.1.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs as aforesaid.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.