PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER 1. This First Appeal has been filed by M/s General Motors (I) Pvt. Ltd., Appellant herein and Opposite Party No.2 before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission, which had partly allowed the complaint of deficiency in service filed by M/s M.P. Bhargava & Co., Respondent No.1 herein and Complainant before the State Commission, and had directed it to pay the Respondent/Complainant a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 2. FACTS : In his complaint before the State Commission, Respondent/Complainant had contended that he had purchased an Opel Astra car from M/s Regent Automobiles (the dealer), hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party No.1, manufactured by Appellant by paying Rs.1,20,963/- towards margin money and after obtaining finance of Rs.6,24,000/- from Bank of America, Opposite Party No.3. Respondent/Complainant had given 59 Post Dated Cheques to Opposite Party No.1 besides margin money of Rs.1,20,963/-. Another cheque in favour of New India Assurance Company was also given towards insurance of the vehicle. The car was delivered on 07.07.1997 alongwith warranty book, VDC and insurance cover note. However, the original sale invoice was not delivered. Moreover, the vehicle was not got registered by Appellant till about 7 months later i.e. on 05.01.1998, thereby depriving Respondent/Complainant from driving the vehicle. Thereafter when Respondent/Complainant drove the car, it was found that it was not properly aligned and was tilting towards the left side. Since the earlier warranty book was valid only upto 05.01.1998, Respondent/Complainant requested Appellant to send a fresh warranty book. It was contended that since Appellant through Opposite Party No.1 had supplied a defective vehicle, they had intentionally delayed registration knowing fully well that Respondent/Complainant would not be able to drive the vehicle in the absence of the registration and in the meantime the warranty period would expire. Being aggrieved by this deficiency in service, Respondent/Complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that Appellant and Opposite Party No.1 be directed to (i) rectify the defects in the vehicle or replace the vehicle; (ii) deliver the registration documents, VDC warranty book and effect the warranty from the date the vehicle can be put to use; (iii) make good the losses incurred due to delay in registration as well as on account of interest on the cost of the car and the insurance amount, etc. 3. Appellant on being served filed a written rejoinder denying that there was any deficiency in service on its part. The delay in registration of the vehicle occurred because Respondent/Complainant had a preference for a specific number i.e. 6500 and he himself did not want the car to be registered till his turn came for allotment of the number chosen by him. It was also denied that there was any manufacturing defect, including any alignment problem in the vehicle. This complaint was made for the first time in April, 1998 whereas had there been any such problem, this could have been reported earlier. Moreover, the job cards clearly indicated that the minor defects pointed out by Respondent/Complainant were duly rectified. 4. The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it concluded that even if it is accepted that Respondent/Complainant had a preference for a specific number for his vehicle, Appellant had taken an inordinately long time for arranging for the number and should have arranged for this alongwith registration within a reasonable period of 15 days or a month. The State Commission also had reservations on the veracity of Appellant’s contention that the registration was delayed because it was Respondent/Complainant who had a preference for a specific number. The State Commission further concluded that from the job cards it was clear that the brand new vehicle was subjected to rectification of a number of defects, for which Respondent/Complainant had suffered mental agony and harassment by taking it time and again to the garage for rectification of the defects. The State Commission observed in this connection as under : “17. … Any amount of shortcoming, imperfection, or inadequacy in the manner of quality and standards of goods renders it as a ‘defect’ in terms of section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.” The State Commission, taking into account this fact and also observing that Respondent/Complainant also cannot be absolved from contributory negligence in keeping the car for 6 months without registration and from when he could have approached the Transport Authority complaining against the Appellant, awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation. 5. Being aggrieved by this order, the present First Appeal has been filed. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent/Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.3 were present and made oral submissions. 7. Counsel for Appellant stated that the State Commission erred in concluding that Appellant was guilty of deficiency in service both on account of supplying defective vehicle and in taking an inordinately long time in delivering the invoice and registration papers of the vehicle etc. In this connection, it was pointed out that it was the responsibility of Opposite Party No.1 to have made available the necessary documents and the Appellant being a manufacturer of the vehicle could not have been held responsible for the same. It was the statutory duty of the Respondent/Complainant to get the vehicle registered for which Appellant in his own discretion had appointed Opposite Party No.1 to do the needful. Further, as per the written agreement between Appellant and Opposite Party No.1, which was filed in evidence, it is clear that neither acted as an agent for the other and they interacted on the principal-to-principal-basis. The State Commission, therefore, erred in holding the Appellant responsible for deficiency in service in delaying the registration of the vehicle. So far as finding of the State Commission that Appellant was guilty of supplying Respondent/Complainant a defective vehicle, it was contended that even Respondent/Complainant had not made any specific allegation of manufacturing defect and had through a single line in his complaint noted that the car was not properly aligned and was tilting towards the left side. Further, though the vehicle was delivered to the Respondent/Complainant in July, 1997, no such complaint was made upto April 4, 1998, when this fact was mentioned in the legal notice. Respondent/Complainant has also not filed any evidence to support his contention regarding improper alignment nor has he ever reported this to Appellant during visit of the vehicle to the workshop. If indeed there was a problem of improper alignment, this would have become apparent even if the vehicle was not driven extensively. 8. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant on the other hand reiterated the facts as stated before the State Commission and contended that the vehicle had serious defects of alignment because of which Respondent/Complainant has not been able to use it till date. He also reiterated the allegation that the registration of the vehicle was unduly delayed to ensure that the period of warranty would be over without Respondent/Complainant having been given the opportunity to use the vehicle. 9. We have considered the oral submissions made by the parties and have also considered the evidence on record. From the evidence on record, we note that no specific complaint regarding any manufacturing defect relating to the alignment of the vehicle was made by the Respondent/Complainant except one line to state that the car appeared to be tilting towards the left side due to improper alignment. However, Respondent/Complainant has not been able to produce any evidence to back this contention. The job cards filed in evidence dated 17.07.1999 and 10.08.2001 only indicate that there was malfunctioning pertaining to wiper blades, lights, seat rattling, filter change, tyre rotation etc.; no mention has been made about any problems pertaining to alignment or any manufacturing defect. Under these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the finding of the State Commission that since the vehicle had some shortcomings and imperfections, it amounted to manufacturing defect. Regarding the grievance of Respondent/Complainant pertaining to delay in the supply of the concerned documents, which were required for registration, and the delay in the registration, we find substance in the contention of Appellant that it was the responsibility of Opposite Party No. 1 to supply these documents and register the vehicle for which Appellant, who was a manufacturer, cannot be held responsible. Therefore, we are also unable to uphold the finding of the State Commission that Appellant was guilty of deficiency in service in delaying the registration of the vehicle. 10. Keeping in view these facts, we set aside the order of the State Commission and allow the present First Appeal. No costs. |
