DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.985 of 2019
Date of institution: 18.06.2019 Date of decision : 12.10.2021
Harmanpreet Singh son of Shri Sarabjit Singh, resident of House No.67-A, Sunny Enclave, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali -140308
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, registered office at Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110071 through its authorized signatory.
2. Stan Autos Private Limited, B-27, Phase-III, Industrial Area, Mohali 160055 through its Branch Manager.
3. Kailash Sharma, Sr. Relation Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.B-27, Industrial Area, Phase-3, Sector 58, Mohali 160055.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: None for the complainant.
OP No.1 ex-parte.
Shri Navneet Jindal, counsel for OP No.2 and 3.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that the CC is a permanent resident of Mohali and visited the office of OP No.2 who is an authorized dealer of OP No.1 in the month of June,2018 as he desired to purchase a four wheeler for the purpose of using the same as a Taxi in order to earn his livelihood. It is alleged that OP No.2 allured the CC and assured him that OP No.1 has a tie up with UBER and will get the vehicle of the CC attached with the above said company and that the CC will earn good money. It is further alleged that on the assurance of OP No.3 who is an authorized person of OP No.2, the CC booked one Maruti Wagon R Green LXI-WMRCAL 1, white colour from OP No.2 for the purpose of using the same as a taxi with UBER in order to earn his livelihood. OP No.2 on 19.07.2018 gave delivery of the vehicle after receiving complete payment which the CC had arranged by obtaining loan from the finance company and out of his own savings etc. Temporary registration certificate, insurance certificate etc. were given to the complainant. It is further averred that the CC immediately after paying the tax to the RTO Mohali got a registration number of the vehicle PB-01-C-0468 and also paid other taxes required for getting the yellow plate for using the vehicle for commercial purposes. It is further averred that the CC after registration of the vehicle, approached OP No.2 and 3 for getting his vehicle registered with UBER but OP No.2 and 3 started making excuses on one pretext or the other. The CC had purchased the vehicle in the month of July, 2018 but till date the OPs have not been able to get his vehicle registered with UBER despite the fact that his vehicle is having a commercial number. Legal notice was also sent for redressal of the grievance of the CC, but of no use. As per the CC, the OPs are duty bound to get the vehicle attached/registered with UBER and also liable to pay compensation etc. It is further alleged that the CC has not been able to use the vehicle for the last 11 months.
Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought following relief:
(a) to get the vehicle registration as early as possible and to pay to the CC Rs.25,000/- per month as loss of income from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 19.07.2018 till realisation.
(b) or in the alternative refund the entire purchase price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,41,031.00 alongwith interest @ 18%.
(c) to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of income due to non attachment/registration of vehicle with UBER.
(d) to pay Rs.40,000/- regarding taxes and other expenses spent on the vehicle.
(e) to pay Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation.
The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply OP No.1 has raised a number of preliminary objections on the ground that allegations of the CC are baseless and far from truth. OP No.1 had no tie up with UBER for getting the vehicle attached with them. OP No.1 has termed the complaint of the CC as mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that version of the complainant is challenged on the ground that CC is not even a consumer of OP No.1. It is further averred that the CC had entered into an independent contract with OP No.2 as far as the alleged transaction of sale is concerned. OP No.1 has got nothing to do with the allegations of the CC. It is further averred that the complaint against OP No.1 is also not maintainable. On merits, the allegations of the CC are denied parawise. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint against itself.
3. In reply OP No.2 has also raised number of preliminary objections on the ground that the CC has no cause of action against OP No.2. It is specifically averred that OP No.2 is the authorized dealer of OP No.1 but has no business with UBER or OLA. The CC intentionally choose dealership of OP No.2 of his own and purchased the vehicle accordingly. He has not approached the Commission with clean hands. On merits, it is specifically alleged by OP No.2 that it had not given any assurance nor the CC has produced any advertisement or any document showing relationship of OP No.2 with UBER or OLA. No such promise was given to the CC to get him a contract from UBER or OLA. Thus prayer clause of the complaint of the CC is vague, absurd and without any merit and OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the same. Version of OP No.2 is also singed and duly verified. OP No.3 has not filed any reply as he was the relationship Manager of OP No.1 and even the CC has not specifically alleged any allegation against him.
3. The CC in support of his complaint submitted his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. On the other hand the OP No.1 has submitted documents in its evidence but OP No.2 has not submitted any document in support of its evidence.
4. We have heard counsel for the OP No.2 and 3. However, none appeared for the complainant but we ourselves have gone through the record.
5. From the perusal of the documents submitted by the CC including the CC, we feel that there is no cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence on the file which supports the allegations of the CC against the OPs. There is nothing on record or any kind of agreement signed by the parties to prove that OP No.1 and 2 or even OP No.3 in any way had promised the CC before the sale of the vehicle, that they will get his vehicle attached with UBER. We feel that there is not even an iota of prima facie evidence on the file to proceed against OP No.1 and 2 or even OP No.3. As far as the CD is concerned it is nothing but only an oral conversation between the parties which require a more scientific and elaborate evidence to prove its genuineness. There is no privty of contract between the CC and the OPs.
6. No doubt the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation and it gives relief to the consumers in certain peculiar circumstances, but at the same time it is mandatory on every consumer to atleast prima facie establish deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In the absence of any relevant evidence it cannot be presumed that there is an agreement of the CC with the OPs. As far as the version in the CD is concerned, we feel that it requires detailed and meticulous evidence and even cross examination of the parties is required, which is not possible in summary way which is being adopted by the various Tribunals and Consumer Commissions. To our mind, the CC has miserably failed to prove his allegations in the complaint against the OPs.
7. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. However, we do not impose any costs on the CC. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without any cost. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
October 12, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
