Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/111/2015

Mr. Gunpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwinder Singh Rathour

17 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	111 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	19.02.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	17.03.2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gunpreet Singh s/o Sh. Satwindwer Singh r/o H.No. 1638 Co-Op. House Building Society, Sector 50, Chandigarh.  

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.  Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Head Office Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, through its Director.

 

2.  CM Auto Sales (P) Ltd. (authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki), Plot No.17, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

3.  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., SCO 5, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh 160017, through its Manager.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Adv.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Salil Sablok, Adv.
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Amit Bhanot, Adv.
For OP No.3	:	Sh. Ram Avtar, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a used car Maruti Swift Dezire (VDI) model 2008 from Opposite Party No.2 on 25.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- duly certified by Opposite Party No.1 as true value car. It has been averred that prior to purchasing the car Opposite Party No.2 assured the complainant that the vehicle is sparingly used and just run 79205 Kms. and as such charged more money from the complainant as compared to market value. The said vehicle after few day of its purchase started making different noises. The complainant went to the Tricity Autos the authorized dealer workshop of Maruti Suzuki to get the same checked where he shockingly came to know that the previous mileage of the vehicle was mentioned as 154335 Kms. as mentioned on the bill dated 5.12.2014.  The complainant also got the photocopy of the service bill dated 10.5.2014 which shows that the odometer reading was 150314 Km as on 10.5.2014 i.e. 6 months prior to the date of purchase. It has been alleged that as such the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 tampered with the odometer reading and thus committed breach of trust. The complainant raised the issue with the Opposite Parties and sought refund but to no effect. It has further been alleged that the Opposite Parties while delivery of the vehicle assured him that all the documents relating to the vehicle in question are genuine but when he went to the Insurance Company for transfer insurance of the vehicle in his name, he came to know that the insurance has already been cancelled by the Opposite Parties as such they refused to transfer the Insurance Policy. When the complainant raised the issue with the Opposite Parties, they refused to get the vehicle insured again.  Alleging deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties the instant complaint has been filed.

    

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party No. 1 in its reply stated that it does not sell the vehicle manufactured by it to any individuals but only to its authorized dealers under an independent contract of Sales of Goods Act. The relationship of the answering Opposite Party and its dealer is that of principal to principal. The answering Opposite Party does sell used car to its dealers.  It has been further pleaded that if there is any tampering with the meter reading, the same is required to be answered by Opposite Party No.2 and the answering Opposite Party has no role to play in this regard. As such no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the answering Opposite Party. All other allegations have been denied being wrong.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.2 in its reply stated that the complainant purchased the vehicle after due inspection and he was fully aware of the mileage of the vehicle. The answering Opposite Party never tampered the reading of the meter. In fact the complainant in order to get good loan with the connivance of a private surveyor got prepared a false report mentioning therein incorrect and lesser mileage. Whereas the complainant has signed and completed all the paper/documentation with the actual mileage clearly mentioned in each and every document i.e. Annexure R-1 and R-4. As such the question of changing the mileage does not arise. The   answering Opposite Party handed over the complainant valid and genuine documents to the complainant and had no reason to cancel the policy and admittedly the complainant received all the documents to his satisfaction. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and answering Opposite Party and the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering Opposite Party. It is averred that the policy in question was issued in the name of Ms.Rimpy Pandit. On the request of the insured the policy was cancelled vide endorsement dated 16.6.2014.  As such the answering Op rightly refused to transfer the cancelled policy in the name of the complainant.  All other allegation have been denied by the answering Opposite Party being wrong.

 

6.     The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.

 

7.     The parties have led evidence in support of their respective contentions.

 

8.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have perused the record carefully. 

 

9.     There are only two issues involved in the present Complaint. The first issue raised by the Complainant is regarding the sale of the vehicle by the Opposite Party No.2 by tampering the Odometer reading. The second issue raised by the Complainant is that the insurance document, which was handed over by the Opposite Party No.2 to him, was later found to be cancelled by the original owner of the vehicle.

 

10.     In his support of his case, the Complainant has submitted an affidavit of Sh. K.K. Taneja, Automobile Engineer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The said Sh. K.K. Taneja, in his duly sworn in affidavit, has deposed that he had duly inspected the said vehicle in the premises of Opposite Party No.2 on 3.11.2014 and the Odometer reading was 79205. As against this, the Opposite Party No.2 has relied upon Annexure R-3 which is Delivery Check List, duly signed by the Complainant. On this document, the Odometer reading at the time of delivery was shown to be 152465 Kms. In this view of the matter, when the Complainant was himself signatory to the said document, it cannot be said that he was unaware about the actual Odometer reading of the vehicle at the time of taking its delivery. No liability can be fastened on Opposite Party No.2 on this count. As such, the allegation levelled by the Complainant, at this juncture, is not substantiated and is thus, ignored.

 

11.     Now, we advert to the second issue raised by the Complainant. Party No.3 has urged that there was no privity of insurance contract with the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 and 2 or with the original owner (Ms.Rimpy Pandit) in whose name the vehicle was insured. In support of its case, Opposite Party No.3 has placed on record Annexure R-3/2 to R-3/3 respectively, to show that the original owner had requested for the cancellation of the insurance policy on 16.6.2014, upon which the same was cancelled on 26.06.2014. In this backdrop, it is legitimately proved that at the time sale of the subject vehicle to the Complainant, the insurance policy already stood cancelled. The Opposite Party No.2 is thus found to be guilty of deficiency in service as well as indulging in unfair trade practice, in as much as, the vehicle was sold by Opposite Party No.2 by keeping him in dark as if the insurance was valid on that date.

 

12.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2 alone, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed:-

[a]  To make payment of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[b]  To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

          The complaint against Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

13.     The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.2, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No.[a] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

14.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17th March, 2016

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER