Case No. 104/2023   

IN THE MATTER OF

Arvind Kumar Saxsena S/o BalKishan Saxsena R/o 77 Hardua, Harduganj Aligarh

                                                         V/s

1. Manager, Mahendra and Mahindra Ltd. Gateway Building Apolo Wonder Mumbai 400039
2. Manager, Vineet Automobiles Pvt Ltd Near Bhikampur, G. T. Road, Aligarh                                                                                     

CORAM

 Present:                                   

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot,Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before for directing the Ops to repay the amount Rs.647000 with interest along with the cost of notice Rs.5500 and compensation Rs.200000 for harassment.
2. The Complainant has stated that he had purchased a mini Truck manufactured by the Op no.1 on 25.7.2022. It was found during the period of using the vehicle that the vehicle was defective. Complainant compliant to Op no.2 who repaired the vehicle for the time being and retained the vehicle at service station for several days which caused financial loss to the complainant. the vehicle was repaired at service center of Op no.2 where it was found that the papers of ownership of the vehicle contains the name of Sheeshpal Singh as owner and date of sale was 29.1.2022. Complainant came to know that the Ops had sold the vehicle having refurbished after taking back the vehicle from Sheeshpal Singh and it was done concealing the facts in collusion of the Ops. As the vehicle was refurbished and therefore it was not smoothly working and was defective.     
3. Op no.1 stated in WS that there arise no cause of action between him and Op no.1. On 16.11.2022 complainant had complained to the authorized service center after plying the vehicle 9304 KM. the service team and engineer checked the vehicle and found 0.5 liter oil drain. The oil were changed and vehicle was kept on observation for 2000KM run. On 30.11.2022 the vehicle was brought to the service center having plied 11264 KM. It was found that the engine Oil was 1.4 liter less. The oil separator and CVV valve were replaced and the vehicle was released for trial on road on 12.12.2022 .Thereafter   the vehicle had undergone service 4 times and no complaint was made.
4. Op no.2 has stated in WS that it sells vehicles manufactured by the Op no.1. Complainant had purchased a mini truck from the OP no.2 for Rs.647000 which was registered by the RTO at no. UP 81 DT 4634. Complainant brought the vehicle at the service center of Op no.2 so many times having met with the accident and the vehicle was repaired with the full satisfaction of the complainant. On 26.8.2022 and the complainant brought the vehicle at service center it was stated by the complainant in claim form that the vehicle was damaged having dis balance in escaping the Neel Gay and vehicle was repaired with the full satisfaction of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant has send some person namely Sheesh Pal for carrying out the service of the vehicle who had stated his name at the counter as owner of the vehicle and thereby the name of Sheesh Pal was written in service papers and bills on account of mistake of that person. OP no.2 has never sold the vehicle to a person namely Sheesh Pal. It is wrong to say that the vehicle was sold defective vehicle which was refurbished.        
5.  Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings.

Ops also filed affidavit and papers in support of his pleading.

6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the complainant’s counsel.
7. First question of consideration before us complainant is entitled for any relief?
8. Complainant has deposed in his affidavit that he had purchased a mini truck manufactured by op no.1 on 25.8.2022 for Rs.647000 out of which an amount of Rs.100000 was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Aligarh and the vehicle was registered at no. UP 81 DT 4634 in his name at the office of RTO Aligarh. Complainant has deposed that when the vehicle was brought to service station of the OP no.2 he came to know that the name of Sheesh Pal Singh as owner was written in service papers and thereby it was found that the vehicle was sold to Sheesh Pal Singh on 29.1.2022 which was sol;d to the complainant having refurbished concealing the facts. Complainant has filed certificate of registration, pollution control certificate insurance certificate delivery note , Ro pre invoice, ex invoice , Ro pe invoice , repair order and vehicle history annexure 1 to 9. Annexure 9 vehicle history contains owner information which makes clear that Sheesh Pal Singh was the owner of the vehicle no. UP 81 DT 4634 of which the warranty started from 29.1.2022. and dealer is op no.2. thus it is clear that Sheesh pal Singh by the owner of the vehicle on 29.1.2022 at alleged by the complainant. It reveal from Ro pre invoice, tax invoice and repair order annexure 5 to 8 that the vehicle no. UP81 DT 4634 was sold on 29.1.2022 to Sheesh Pal Singh and these are the papers of repairs of the vehicle and it is correct to say by the complainant that the name of Sheesh Pal Singh was written in service papers by the op no.2 is not reliable and it is hold that the vehicle was originally sold to Sheesh Pal Singh on 29.1.2022. It reveals from annexure to delivery note issued by the op no.2that the vehicle was deliver to complainant on 25.7.2022 and thereafter the vehicle was insured from 25.7.2022 to 24.7.2023 as per invoice certificate annexure 3. Accordingly the vehicle was refurbished in the name of complainant on 25.7.2022   as per registration certificate. Thus it is evident that vehicle was sold to the complainant second time vide delivery note dated 25.7.2022. In view of fact stated by the complainant the vehicle was sold to the complainant having refurbished and was not original vehicle. Accordingly complainant is entitle for refund of amount Rs647000 with interest @12 % per annum from 25.7.2022 to till the date of actual payment. Rs.200000 for compensation for harassment and Rs.5500 litigation expenses . Complainant to return the vehicle to the op no.2. OP no.2 is liable to pay punitive damages U/s 39 (1) (k) of Act at  Rs. 500000 (Five lacs) out of which Rs 100000 shall be paid to the complainant and remaining amount Rs.400000 shall be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund.               
9. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainants.
10. We hereby direct the op no.2 to refund the amount Rs647000 with interest @12 % per annum from 25.7.2022 till the date of actual payment, Rs.200000 for compensation for harassment and Rs.5500 for litigation expenses. Complainant shall return the vehicle to the op no.2. OP no.2 shall  pay punitive damages U/s 39 (1) (k) of Act at  Rs. 500000 (Five lacs) out of which Rs 100000 shall be paid to the complainant and remaining amount Rs.400000 shall be deposited  in Consumer Welfare Fund. 
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.