BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.142 of 2016

Date of Instt. 28.03.2016

Date of Decision : 19.09.2016

Sunil Kumar aged about 54 years, son of late Sh.Santosh Kumar, R/o House No.BX-3571, Tej Mohan Nagar, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director.

2.Lovely Autos, Dr.Ambedkar Chowk, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar through its MD/Partner/Authorized Representative.

3.Anand and

4.Karn

Both representatives of the OP NO.2 C/o Lovely Autos, Dr.Ambedkar Chowk, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.AK Jyoti Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Arun Seth Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 to 4.

OP No.1 exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant deposited advance money Rs.10,000/- for the purchase of a car Alto K-10 Maruti with OP No.2 on 5.1.2016. The OPs delivered the car Alto K-10 to the complainant on 6.1.2016. The complainant submitted that he drove the said car for about 40 KM in two days. Thereafter, he came to know that the OP has delivered the car of Model 2015 instead of Model 2016. The complainant approached OP No.2 and the OP No.2 fixed true value of the car Rs.3,10,000/- declaring it as Model 2015. Whereas the price of the car Model 2016 is much more than Rs.3,10,000/-. As per RC of the vehicle in question also came to light that manufacturing date of the vehicle in question was December 2015. The complainant submitted that the OP has, therefore, played fraud with the complainant by adopting unfair trade practice. Therefore, the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant and they also be directed to deliver the car of Model 2016 to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs as mental, physical and financial loss, having caused to him by the OP, apart from delivering a car of Model 2016 in lieu of Model 2015 to him alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.

2. Upon notice, OPs No.2 to 4 appeared through counsel and filed a written reply pleaded that the complainant deposited advance money of Rs.10,000/- for the purchase of car Alto K-10 with OP No.2 and the OP No.2 delivered the car to the complainant on 6.1.2016. The complainant gave a undertaking dated 6.1.2016 that he has no objection in taking the delivery of the vehicle Model December 2015. Thereafter, on 15.1.2016. the complainant approached OP No.2 and stated that he does not want this car and agree to resell the same to the OP No.2. The OP No.2 assessed the true value of the car Rs.3,10,000/- and the complainant signed the purchased agreement dated 15.1.2016 and he resold the car in question to OP No.2 on receipt of Rs.3,10,000/- as per agreement dated 15.1.2016. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 to 4 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.2 to 4 qua the complainant.

3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 sent written reply by post, pleading that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1 regarding the resale of the vehicle in question. The relationship between OP No.1 and its dealer OP No.2 is governed by provision of dealership agreement which is based on principal to principal. So, there is no dealing of complainant with OP No.1 in this regard. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 qua the complainant. Thereafter, no body has turned up on behalf of OP No.1. As such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.5.2016.

4. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 to 4 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPWA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP7 and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant deposited advance money Rs.10,000/- for the purchase of a car Alto K-10 Maruti with OP No.2 on 5.1.2016 as per statement of account Ex.C1. The OPs delivered the car Alto K-10 to the complainant on 6.1.2016 vide invoice Ex.C3. The complainant submitted that he drove the said car for about 40 KM in two days. Thereafter, he came to know that the OP has delivered the car of Model 2015 instead of Model 2016. The complainant approached OP No.2 and the OP No.2 fixed true value of the car Rs.3,10,000/- declaring it as Model 2015. Whereas the price of the car Model 2016 is much more than Rs.3,10,000/-. As per RC of the vehicle in question Ex.C2 it also came to light that manufacturing date of the vehicle in question December 2015. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP has, therefore, played fraud with the complainant by adopting unfair trade practice. Therefore, the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant and they also be directed to deliver the car of Model 2016 to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.2 to 4 is that the complainant deposited advance money of Rs.10,000/- for the purchase of car Alto K-10 with OP No.2 and the OP No.2 delivered the car to the complainant on 6.1.2016. The complainant gave an undertaking dated 6.1.2016 Ex.OP1 that he has no objection in taking the delivery of the vehicle Model December 2015. Thereafter, on 15.1.2016. the complainant approached OP No.2 and stated that he does not want this car and agree to resell the same to the OP No.2. The OP No.2 assessed the true value of the car Rs.3,10,000/- and the complainant signed the purchased agreement Ex.OP2 dated 15.1.2016 and he resold the car in question to OP No.2 on receipt of Rs.3,10,000/- as per this agreement Ex.OP2 dated 15.1.2016. Not only this, the complainant also signed declaration in this regard dated 15.1.2016 Ex.OP3 and also signed the transfer of ownership form i.e. form No.30 Ex.OP6 in favour of the OP and he also submitted affidavit of sale regarding this Ex.OP7. Counsel for the OP No.2 to 4 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.2 to 4 qua the complainant.

9. Whereas the case of OP No.1 is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1 regarding the resale of the vehicle in question. The relationship between OP No.1 and its dealer OP No.2 is governed by provision of dealership agreement which is based on principal to principal as is evident from clause 5 of the said agreement annexure Ex.OP1/1. So, there is no dealing of complainant with OP No.1 in this regard. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 qua the complainant.

10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 5.1.2016 with OP No.2 as advance money for the purchase of car Alto K-10 and the vehicle bearing registration No.PB-08-DE-7423 was delivered to the complainant on 6.1.2016 vide invoice Ex.C3 for a sum of Rs.3,40,356/-. At the time of taking the delivery of the car, the complainant himself has given undertaking dated 6.1.2016 under his own signatures, thereby, he has declared and undertook that he was delivered the car Alto K-10 VXI by OP No.2, the manufacturing month of which is December 2015 and he is taking the delivery of this car having full knowledge and consent that the same was manufactured in December 2015. The complainant drove this car for 9 days and he approached OP NO.2 with request that he does not want this car and wanted to resell the same. The OP No.2 assessed the true value of the car on 15.1.2016 as Rs.3,10,000/- and the complainant agreed with this amount as resale price of the vehicle in question, to OP No.2 and he executed purchase agreement dated 15.1.2016 under his own signatures. Thereby, he resold the vehicle in question to OP No.2 on 15.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- and he also signed declaration in this regard dated 15.1.2016 Ex.OP3. Not only this, the complainant also signed Form No.30 Ex.OP6 regarding transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question in favour of the OP. Not only this, the complainant also filed affidavit in this regard Ex.OP7 in favour of the OP regarding the sale of vehicle in question. The complainant did not deny the execution of the aforesaid documents i.e. undertaking dated 6.1.2010 Ex.OP1 to take the delivery of the car manufactured in December 2015 with full knowledge and consent, Resale agreement Ex.OP2, declaration Ex.OP3, Form No.30 regarding the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the OP Ex.OP6, affidavit Ex.OP7, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that these papers were got signed by the OP from the complainant in routine. This plea of the complainant is not tenable because these forms are duly printed forms which fully proved that the complainant gave undertaking that he is receiving the car manufactured in December 2015 with his full knowledge and consent. He resold the car in question to the OP vide purchase agreement Ex.OP2. He also signed declaration Ex.OP3, transfer of ownership Form No.30 Ex.OP6 and affidavit Ex.OP7. All this fully prove that the complainant purchased this vehicle manufactured in December 2015 with full knowledge and consent of 6.1.2016 and he resold the vehicle to OP No.2 on 15.1.2016 after receipt of true value price Rs.3,10,000/-. As such, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant and the complaint is without merit. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

19.09.2016 Member President