Delhi

North

CC/256/2023

PANKAJ PARASHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MALWA MOTORS PVT LTD & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.256/2023

In the matter of

Shri Pankaj Parashar

S/o Shri Narain Swaroop

H. No.458, Pana Dhaniwara,

Bawana, Delhi-110039.                     …               Complainant

 

Vs.

Malwa Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Its registered office at:

15, Gokhale Market,

Opp. New Courts, Tis Hazari,

Delhi-110054,

Email ID: malwa_honda@yahoo.com        

Also at:

Malwa Motors Pvt. Ltd.

A-1/16, Prashant Vihar Road,

Opposite Andhra Bank,

Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085           …               Opposite Party No.1

 

M/s TATA Motors Pvt. Ltd.

4^th Floor, Ahura Centre,

82 Mahakali Caves Road, MIDC

Andheri East, Mumbai-400093

Email: cac@tatmotors.com                 …               Opposite Party No.2

 

M/s TATA Motors Finance Ltd.

2^nd Floor, A Wing, I Think Techno Campus

Off Pokhran Road No.2

Thane (West), Maharashtra-400601

Also at:

33, 1^st floor, Community Centre

Wazirpur Industrial Area

Delhi-110052.                                   …               Opposite Party No.3

 

ORDER

04/12/2023

 

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. By way of this complaint, the Complainant herein has alleged that M/s Malwa Motors Pvt Ltd (OP-1 herein) has not handed over the purchased vehicle to him till date. The Complainant, sometimes in the month of September 2019, had booked a Tata Zest XE car manufactured by M/s Tata Motors Ltd (OP-2 herein) at Prashant Vihar outlet of OP-1. The same car was finance by M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd (OP-3 herein). Subsequently, the car was invoiced on 30.09.2019 for delivery in Hisar, Haryana. OP-3 has also approved the loan and disbursed the loan amount sometimes in the month of October 2019 and the EMI was scheduled to be paid from 11.12.2019. It is alleged by the Complainant that despite him completing all formalities, OP-1 has not delivered the car in question to the Complainant till date.

2. We have heard the arguments of Shri R K Mishra, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and have also perused the records as filed by the Complainant including the additional documents which were filed subsequent to filing of the complaint. We have found certain discrepancies in the allegations and conduct of the Complainant.

3. It is alleged by the Complainant, OP-1 has not delivered the car to the Complainant till date, but the Complainant has not filed any police complaint to this effect till date. On our enquiry, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant, upon instructions from his client, stated that he was following up with the OP-1 regarding delivery of vehicle, hence he did not approach the Police station for filing any complaint/ FIR in this regard. This statement does not inspire confidence of this Commission. There are very few communications on record. In none of these communications initiated by the Complainant, he has complained to the OPs that the car in question was not delivered to him. It was only in the legal notice sent on behalf of the Complainant on 07.08.2023 that the averment on behalf of the Complainant was made for the first time that the car was not delivered. Surprisingly, once the car was not delivered to him, Complainant also did not initiate any criminal proceedings against the OP-1 till date.

4. The documents filed by the Complainant indicate that the first insurance policy was issued on 14.11.2019 and was valid till 13.11.2020. The policy was subsequently renewed by the Complainant on 15.03.2021 to 14.03.2021. It is also very strange that when the vehicle was not delivered, why the Complainant renewed its insurance on 15.03.2021 for a period of one year. It is also to be noted here that such renewal was done after four months since expiry of previous policy. The renewal of expired policy is done only after inspection of the vehicle by the insurance company. As the insurance policy was renewed after four months since expiry of last policy, it can be assumed that the car was duly inspected prior to issuance of renewed policy. The reason for getting the policy renewed when the car in question was allegedly not delivered was also not properly explained by the Complainant.

5. In the legal notice dated 07.08.2023, sent on behalf of the Complainant, the allegation of non-delivery of the car was made for the first time. Vide its reply dated 28.08.2023; OP-1 has categorically denied the allegation of non-delivery of the car and has stated that the car was delivered to the Complainant on 04.12.2019 itself. In the said reply to the legal notice, OP-1 has also referred to an email dated 14.08.2020, by which the Complainant has requested for conversion of the said car from “commercial” to “private”. The said email was not initially filed, but the same was filed as additional document by the Complainant. We have perused the email dated 14.08.2020 and we also note that by even in the said email, the Complainant has not alleged non-delivery of the car. Complainant has simply requested the OP-1 to take steps to get the car converted from “commercial” category to “private” category. The additional document also indicates that on 28.09.2020, OP-1 has confirmed to get the car registered under “private” category and has requested the Complainant to make the payment of registration charges. But there is no document on record to suggest that the Complainant has made the payment for the said purpose.

6. It is reiterated that the Complainant has not made any allegation of non-delivery of the car in question even in its email dated 14.08.2020 and this allegation was made for the first time only through the legal notice dated 07.08.2023. The Complainant has also not filed any police complaint/ FIR against OP-1 for the probable criminal breach of trust or for any other probable criminal offence by not delivering the car in question after accepting the payments. Such conduct of the Complainant creates serious doubt over the correctness of the allegations.

7. It is also important to note here that the Complainant stopped paying the EMIs for the car loan advanced by OP-3 herein. Accordingly, the OP-3 initiated the arbitration proceedings against the Complainant. By way of interim order dated 30.11.2022, the Arbitrator has permitted the OP-3 to initiate recovery proceedings against the Complainant. The said order of the arbitrator has not been challenged by the Complainant. Further as OP-3 has already initiated, this commission is barred to entertain complaint against OP-3.

8. Further, in the complaint, there is no specific allegation of deficiency of service and/ or unfair trade practice qua OP-2 and OP-3. The allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service has been alleged in the complaint only against OP-1. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable against OP-2 and OP-3.

9. For the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself.

10. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping copies of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member