BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No. 96 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:         03.03.2015

                                                   Date of Decision:          30.09.2015

Rajinder Singh Bajwa son of Piara Singh resident of House No.644, Ward No.5, Amir Colony, Kalka Road, Rajpura, District Patiala.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., through its authorised Officer, Gurgaon.

2.     Tricity Autos (Authorised Dealer of Maruti Suzuki), Zirakpur Highway near AKM Resorts, Zirakpur District SAS Nagar (Mohali)

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri K.L. Verma, counsel for the complainant.

                OP No.1 ex-parte.

                Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for OP No.2

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the OPs to:

(a)    replace the vehicle in question with the vehicle manufactured in November, 2014 or thereafter.

(b)    pay him compensation of Rs.5.00 lac for unfair trade practice and deficient services.

(c)    pay him Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

                The case of the complainant is that on 22.12.2014 he approached OP No.2 for purchase of CIAZ VDI car. The complainant told the OP No.2 that the car should be manufactured in November, 2014 to which OP No.2 agreed. Upon this assurance, the complainant paid Rs.1.00 lac to OP No.2 vide receipt dated 22.12.2014. The remaining amount of Rs.5,40,000/-  and Rs.2,00,000/-  was paid by the complainant to the OP No.2 vide receipts dated 27.12.2014. Rs.60,000/- was paid by the complainant to OP No.2 vide receipt dated 01.01.2015.All these amounts were paid by the complainant to OP No.2 before delivery of the car to the complainant.  On receipt of full amount, OP No.2 got issued insurance policy dated 01.01.2015 from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to the complainant. OP No.2 also issued temporary registration No.PB-65(T) 0342 to the complainant.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 01.01.2015 at 3.30 PM. Before that the complainant asked OP No.2 to show the papers regarding manufacturing date of the car and OP No.2 assured him that it is in their record that the said vehicle is roughly one month old.  At the time of delivery of the car, the complainant sought bills and other papers of the car but OP No.2 requested that at present the computer is not in working position  and the function of the internet is slow and due to this bill and other papers would be handed over to the complainant on 02.01.2015. On 02.01.2015 the complainant received the bill and other documents and was shocked to see that the manufacturing date of the vehicle is August, 2014.  The complainant immediately called Mr. Sanjiv, the concerned official of the Tricity Autos and informed him that the vehicle is manufactured in August, 2014 and not in November, 2014.  Mr. Sanjiv assured to do the needful but thereafter no response was received from him. The complainant visited OP No.2 on 05.01.2015 but did not get any good response. He then approached Mr. Mohit Sales Manager who refused to entertain the request of the complainant. The complainant sent e-mail dated 06.01.2015 followed by mail dated 08.01.2015, 10.01.2015 that he has not used the vehicle and had not started process of registration of the vehicle but again no response was received. On 11.01.2015 the customer care of the OPs sent e-mail to the complainant that the matter will be resolved soon as early as possible. On 15.01.2015 an officer of OP No.2 sent letter to the complainant admitting therein the demand of the complainant for the car manufactured in November, 2014.  Thereafter the complainant sent e-mails dated 14.01.2015 and 20.01.2015 but without any result. The complainant even got served a legal notice dated 02.02.2015 to the OPs. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs.  None appeared for OP No.1 but its written reply was received by post. In the preliminary objections of the reply, OP No.1 has pleaded that the complainant is consumer a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant did not enter into any contract for sale or hired any service for consideration with OP No.1. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. The complainant has failed to set out any specific allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against OP No.1. The OP No.1 does not sell the vehicle manufactured by it to any individual customer. OP No.1 is not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of the dealer. The relationship between OP No.1 and OP No.2 is governed by provisions of Dealership Agreement executed between them and is based on Principal to Principals basis.  On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has neither paid the price of vehicle to OP No.1 nor OP No.1 has delivered/sold the vehicle to the complainant. There is no cause of action between the complainant and OP No.1. OP No.1 sold the vehicle in question under C Form sale to OP No.2 who sold the same to the complainant. OP No.2 is a separate and independent legal entity to carry on its business of sale of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles.  Denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

3.             OP No.2 in its written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. The complainant approached it on 22.12.2014 for purchase of a car and after receiving the full payment and completion of paper work, the complainant was asked to take possession of the car and the complainant selected the car from its godown amongst the cars standing there and thereafter the car selected by the complainant was delivered to him on 01.01.2015. All the documents were delivered to the complainant on 01.01.2015.  On receipt of e-mail dated 06.01.2015, it contacted the complainant and informed him that manufacturing month might be August, 2014 but the chassis number has been received in the month of December, 2014 from OP No.1.  On merits also the OP No.2 has taken the stand as has been taken in the preliminary objections and sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-17.

5.             Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Dhruv Garg, its CEO Ex.OP-2/1.

6.             Evidence of OP No.2 consists of affidavit of Jangjit Singh Ex.OP-2/1 and documents Ex.OP-2/2 to Ex.OP-2/6.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

8.             The disputed question in the present complaint is that as against the promised date of manufacturing of the vehicle i.e. November, 2014, OP No.2 has supplied him the car manufactured in August, 2014. Upon delivery the complainant raised this issue with the OPs including the customer care centre. Both the OPs have denied any promise of supply of sale of car manufactured in November, 2014. The car in question, other than the said issue, is not having any manufacturing defect and neither the complainant has alleged so in the complaint. Whether the act of the OPs in supplying the car manufactured in August, 2014 as against the November, 2014 is an act of deficiency in service?

9.              In order to support his case the onus is on the complainant to prove the promised delivery of car manufactured in November, 2014. The evidence proved by the complainant nowhere discloses such promise by the OPs. The complainant has just made this assertion in the complaint duly supported by his affidavit which is without any independent corroborative evidence on record. In the absence of any corroboration of the stand of the complainant, no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops can be proved.

10.           In view of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed without any costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

September 30, 2015.    

                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member