BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 743 of 2018
Date of Institution: 21.9.2018
Date of Decision:28.9.2021
Mr. Dhanwant Singh S/o Sh. Didar Singh R/o 207, Mehta Nangal, Tehsil Baba Bakala District Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Gate Ward Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001
- Greenland Automobiles Limited, Chandigarh Manali Highway, VPO Kothipura, Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur-174001 (HP)
- Kartar Motor Punjab Pvt.Ltd., Shop No. 129, Transport Nagar, Amritsar 143001 through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principle Officer
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
Result : Complaint Allowed
Case referred
- Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Vs. Dwarkadhis Projects (Pvt) Ltd. 2019(2) Supreme Court Cases page 417.
- “Kulwinder Singh Versus LIC of India “ 2007(1) CLT 303 (Punjab)
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Sh. Mohan Arora,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 : Sh.S.S.Mehndiratta,Advocate
CORAM
Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President
Mr.Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
ORDER:-
Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President :-Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Brief facts and pleadings
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Mahindra Blazo vehicle from opposite party No.2 as the said purchase order was made to opposite party No.3 and the said vehicle being manufactured by opposite party No.1. The complainant is to run the said vehicle without employing any permanent employee for exclusively earning his livelihood by means of self employment, as such the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission. The complainant was approached by the opposite party No.3 to purchase the said vehicle Mahindra Blazo and the complainant coming into the sweet words of the executives of opposite party No.1 agreed to purchase the said vehicle with financial assistance from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd and the said opposite party No.1 supplied the said vehicle on 26.10.2017 at their above given showroom address to the complainant with the invoice raised from opposite party No.2, copy of invoice is Ex.C-2 and issued the sale certificate dated 26.10.2016, copy of sale certificate is Ex.C-3 alongwith other documents required for the registration of the said vehicle , copy of said document is Ex.C-4. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 issued the sale certificate dated 26.10.2016 to the complainant whereas the vehicle was sold on 26.10.2017 and the registering authority refused to register the said vehicle as the said sale certificate was apparently wrong . The complainant approached the opposite parties several times personally as well as communicated to them but they did not bother to rectify the said sale certificate resultantly the vehicle could not be registered with the registering authority and cannot be brought on road and lost its road worthiness till date and heavy interest on the financed amount was to be borne by the complainant. The complainant made lots of efforts and due deliberations then the opposite party issued fresh sale certificate on 7.9.2018, copy of same is Ex.C-5 with dated 26.10.2017. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties in issuing the wrong dated sale certificate and later not rectifying the same and due to this act of the opposite parties the vehicle cannot be put to use and burdened with the liability of heavy interest is an act of deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party be directed to refund the amount of interest paid alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. to Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd. from 26.10.2017 till 7.9.2018;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs may also be awarded to the complainant.
(c ) Opposite party be also directed to pay adequate litigation expenses to the complainant ;
(b) Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that answering opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and opposite parties No.2 & 3 are its authorized dealer. Dealers purchase the vehicles manufactured by opposite party No.1 in bulk quantities and in turn resell them to the ultimate customer. Further , sale of the vehicle and its service is conducted by the dealer. The answering opposite party is not aware of the ultimate customer of the dealers and as such there is no privity of contract between the answering opposite party and the ultimate customer of the vehicle . The liability of manufacturer is limited to the terms and conditions of the warranty policy. Thus in view of the abovesaid , the complainant is not the consumer of the answering opposite party ; that as alleged, the sale certificate has been issued by opposite party No.2. The complainant has not levelled any allegation against opposite party No.3 and thus, no cause of action arises merely by impleading opposite party No.3. Thus no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in view of the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company 2010(1) SCC 135 ; that complainant has not impleaded Mahindra & Mahindra Finance as party, therefore, the complaint is bad for non joinder of proper and necessary parties ; that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the vehicle in question is beyond Rs. 20,00,000/-; that there is no complaint of any manufacturing defect in the vehicle . Therefore, no cause of action arises against the replying opposite party. Admittedly the sale certificate has also not issued by answering opposite party. Thus filing of complaint against answering opposite party is abuse of process of law, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, opposite party No.1 has taken the similar pleas as were taken in the preliminary objections, as such there is no need to reproduce the same. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 in their written version have admitted that the complainant purchased Mahindra Blazo vehicle from opposite party No.2 and the purchase order was made to opposite party No.3 and that the said vehicle is being manufactured by opposite party No.1. It was admitted that complainant has obtained finance to purchase the said vehicle from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance. It was admitted that the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 26.10.2017. It was denied that the opposite parties No.1 & 2 issued the sale certificate dated 26.10.2016 to the complainant. The vehicle was sold on 26.10.2017 and all the documents were issued to the complainant on 26.10.2017. It was denied that the registering authority refused to register the said vehicle as the sale certificate was wrong. It was submitted that all the relevant documents of the said vehicle were issued and handed over to the complainant on 26.10.2017 and since then the complainant is driving the said vehicle. While submitting that there is no deficiency in service and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
Evidence of the complainant and Arguments
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his self attested affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of sale certificate dated 26.10.2016 Ex.C-2, copy of tax invoice Ex.C-3, copy of sale certificate dated 26.10.2017 Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand opposite parties No.2 & 3 filed affidavit of Sh. Sukhbir Singh.
6. Whereas opposite party No.1 alongwith written version has filed affidavit of Sh. Ashish Sharma, Regional Sales Manager Ex.OP1/1, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file . We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by opposite parties No.2 & 3. Ld.counsel for the complainant as well as Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 suffered their statements that they do not want to file written arguments and the contents of the complaint as well as written version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 respectively be read as part and parcel of written arguments.
Findings
8. Ld.counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that opposite party has issued form No. 21 which was of dated 26.10.2016 copy of which is Ex.C-2, whereas the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 26.10.2017, copy of invoice is Ex.C-3 on record. However, when the registering authority refused to register the said vehicle as the sale certificate/form No.21 was of dated 26,10.2016, whereas the invoice for purchase of vehicle was 26.10.2017, as such the complainant made several calls /visits to the opposite party to issue correct sale certificate. Ld.counsel for the complainant vehemently contended that opposite party No.1 issued Form No. 21 on 7.9.2018 by correcting the date as 26.10.2017 . The complainant has argued that since form No. 21 was not supplied by the opposite party No.1 on 26.10.2017 itself i.e. on the date of purchase rather it has bee provided after one year i.e. on 7.9.2018 due to this he has suffered irreparable loss and it tantamount to mal practice, unfair trade practice which resulted into lot of mental agony, harassment and inconvenience .
9. On the other hand opposite parties No.2 & 3 categorically challenged this complaint on the ground of Locus standi . It was denied by the opposite parties that opposite party No.1 has issued sale certificate dated 26.10.2016 whereas the vehicle was sold on 26.10.2017 and rest of the averments made by the complainant in his complaint are denied. It is further averted in the written version that opposite party has handed over all the relevant documents on 26.10.2017 at the time of delivery of the vehicle . Written version is also supported by the affidavit. Whereas it will not out of place to mention here that opposite party No.1 has filed its written version by way of affidavit and challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this commission and also pecuniary jurisdiction of the present Commission and it is also averted that since there was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle , as such no cause of action arises against the replying opposite party.
10. This Commission has given the thoughtful consideration to the averments made by the complainant vis a vis opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 qua the territorial jurisdiction to make the things more clear. Section 11(2)(a) &(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is reproduced as under:-
“11 (2)(a) : A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction:-
- The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (caries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain ; or
- Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office) or personally work for gain, as the case may be , acquiesce in such institution.
11. From the bare reading of these sub sections, it is very much clear that the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be filed where the opposite parties voluntarily resides or for carry of business or branch office and or personally works for gains. In the present case Mahindra & Mahindra is admittedly having their dealers not only at Gurgaon but all over India including the present district of Amritsar. Hence, they are also doing and carries on business as per section 11(2)(a) and (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, this Commission has brushed aside the arguments of the opposite party counsel that this Forum (now Commission) has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
12. So far as pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned as per law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for adjudging the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission has to taken into consideration the total compensation claimed while deciding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission. To clarify this fact, the Commission relied upon Rameshwar Prasad Shrivastava Vs. Dwarkadhis Projects (Pvt) Ltd. 2019(2) Supreme Court Cases page 417. Since in the present case, the complainant has only claimed the interest which he was compelled to pay during the period from 26.10.2017 to 7.9.2018 to the finance company from where the complainant has got financed the vehicle and interest on that interest, compensation of Rs. 9 lacs which is certainly less than Rs. 20 lacs as defined in section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, this Commission has no hesitation to hold that this Commission is very much pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.
13. However when we go through the merits of the case, it is a matter of record that two Form No.21 have been placed on record by the complainant i.e. one is of dated 26.10.2016 and another is of dated 26.10.2017. Opposite parties have only denied the fact that all the documents were delivered to the complainant alongwith the vehicle on 26.10.2017. If the plea of the opposite party is true how the complainant can procure Form No.21 which was of dated 26.10.2016 copy of which is Ex.C-2 on record. Since the complaint is supported by affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1. Moreover it is settled principle of law that in case, two plausible views were available, under given set of facts, the court shall be obliged to the view which was favourable to the consumer. Reference in this regard can be had to “Kulwinder Singh Versus LIC of India “ 2007(1) CLT 303 (Punjab) wherein it has been held that “where two views are possible, the one, which favour the consumer should be taken”
14. From the above discussion, this Commission held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for not providing sale certificate well in time. Hence, they are guilty of deficiency in service.
Relief:
15. So far as relief of interest from 26.10.2017 to 7.9.2018 which was paid to the finance company is concerned, the complainant has not placed on record any document from where it can be concluded that how much interest he has paid during this period to the finance company and the complainant has also not impleaded the said finance company as party to the present complaint. Hence, this relief cannot be taken into consideration and the same is declined.
16. So far as compensation as claimed is concerned, since the complainant was not able to use the vehicle without the RC and was compelled to knock the door of this Commission and the opposite parties did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant and had it was redressed at appropriate time, certainly this litigation could have been avoided . As the complainant , has faced lot of harassment due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as such the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which the complainant is entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission.
Announced in Open Commission (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra) President
Dated: 28.9.2021
(Jatinder Singh Pannu)
