Haryana

Ambala

CC/256/2014

LEELA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AMBALA AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

Tarun Chaudhary authorized representative

16 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 Complaint Case No.: 256 of 2014

 Date of Institution    : 10.09.2014

 Date of Decision       : 16.06.2015

Mrs. Leela Devi wife of Late Sh. Raghbeer Singh resident of village Talheri Gujran, District Ambala.

                                                                                                                                                      ……Complainant

                                                                                                      Versus

1.       M/s Ambala Automobiles India Ltd. , 1-Near Jail Bridge, Ram Nagar, Baldev Nagar, Chandigarh Road, Ambala City through its Manager/Proprietor.

2.       Dara Singh Virk, R/o House No.1182, Sector 10,Ambala City C/o Aligent Hunda village Khuda District Ambala.

3.       Lavkesh Singh, agent of M/s Ambala Automobiles, India Ltd. Ambala City.

4.       Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchmahal, Gujrat.

5.       Magma Finance Corpn. Ltd. C/o Ambala Automobiles India Ltd.,   Ambala City.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ……Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Tarun Chaudhary, authorized representative for complainant.    

                    Sh.Keshav Sharma, Adv. counsel for OP No.1.

                    OP No.2 in person.

                    Ops No. 3 & 5 given up.

                    Sh. Harjot Singh, Advocate counsel for OP No.4.

ORDER.

1.                Brief facts of the present case are that Ops No. 2 & 3 being agent of OP No.1 approached the complainant on 06.07.2014 for purchase of Chevrolet Car and told that they will supply the car on Canteen Stores Department Rates and they will arrange all documents, if not, they will refund the amount of CSD concession and asked the complainant to give them Rs.50,000/- as down payment.  As such, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash by the complainant to Ops No.2 & 3 in the presence of  OP No.1 and also paid a sum of Rs.24150/-,  in cash vide receipt No.537 but no receipt was issued by OP  for Rs.50,000/-. Complainant further submitted that the car was financed by OP No.5 who obtained 15 blank cheques duly signed and assured that the same will be presented against the installment of the loan amount out of which one cheque has already been encashed.  As per complainant, the car Chevrolet Model BEAT LS was delivered vide delivery challan dated 06.08.2014 but till date OP No.1 has not issued any purchase voucher and other forms i.e. 20,21 & 22 necessary for registration of the vehicle and in the absence of said documents, complainant is unable to get the vehicle registered  as well as is not in a position to ply the same on road which has defeated the purpose of purchasing the car.   Complainant has approached the OP No.1 for issue of purchase voucher and other documents a lot of times but  he is putting off the matter under one pretext or the other. Having no alternative, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking relief as per prayer clause.  

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint and that the complainant was not entitled to purchase a vehicle through CSD. On merits, it has been submitted that  the complainant paid less amount of Rs.50,000/- to the actual price of the car to the answering OP  and also assured that in case she failed to supply  the requisite papers, in that event, she will pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- i.e. the cost of the said car at civil rate.  The complainant neither supplied the papers as promised by her nor any approval  has been received by the OP from Defence authority nor any Local supply order was given to the complainant and thus sale papers of the vehicle  was withheld by them and submitted that there is no deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

                   OP No.4 filed its  written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint as there is no privity of contract between the complainant & OP No.4 and the complainant never contacted or paid any amount to him. It has been further submitted that answering OP is neither a dealer/retailer nor a manufacturer rather he used to purchase all the manufactured vehicle of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., which is a sister concern of Op No.4 and thereafter answering OP used to sell the cars to OP No.1 in bulk. On merits, it has been urged that if any wrongful has been done by the Ops No.2 & 3 with the complainant, he was required to initiate criminal proceedings against them  instead  of filing the present complaint. As such, the answering OP has nothing to do with the allegations contained in the complaint. It has been further submitted that if the OP No.1 was not providing documents, then complainant should not have taken the delivery of the vehicle as without documents she is unable to ply it on road. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

                   Vide statement of complainant recorded separately, Ops No.3 & 5 were given up vide order dated 28.04.2015 whereas OP No.2 did not submitted reply to the complaint  rather stated on oath that complainant paid full price of the car to OP No.1 i.e. Ambala Automobiles while purchasing it as he was working as an employee with OP No.1 at the time of purchasing of car by complainant.

3.                Replication too filed by complainant controverting the contents of W.S./reply submitted by OP No.1 and reiterated the contents of the complaint filed by her.

4.                In evidence, complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavits of Jagjit Singh & Vijay Vats authorized representative of OP No.1 as Annexures R1/Y & R1/Z respectively alongwith documents Annexures R-1 to R-22 and closed their evidence. The counsel for OP No.4 also tendered in evidence affidavit  of one Sanmukh Singh Khaira, Zonal Sales Manager as Annexure R4/X alongwith documents as Anexure R4/1 & R4/2 and closed evidence on behalf of Op No.4.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant paid full price of the car in question to the Op No.1 and thus they delivered the possession of the vehicle vide delivery challan dated 06.08.2014 but they did not hand over the necessary documents such as invoice, Form no.20, 21 &22 etc. necessitated for registration of the vehicle with the Registering Authority and as such, complainant has to file the present complaint. The counsel for complainant further argued that  the version of OP No.1 that  complainant paid Rs.50,000/- less qua the price of car and that is why they withheld the sale papers of car in question is totally wrong and now OP No.1 has delivered all the documents necessitated for registration of car in compliance of interim directions issued by the Forum vide order dated 01.04.2015 but have harassed the complainant very badly since the complainant could not ply the car on road freely without Registration document and  remained under stress of accident/challan etc. from police authorities and thus she be suitably compensated for said harassment & mental agony etc.

                        On the other hand, counsel for Op No.1 has argued that the complainant paid less amount of Rs.50,000/- to the actual cost of the vehicle in question  and thus  they retained sale papers of the vehicle and have handed over the papers of the car in question in compliance of interim  directions issued by Forum on 01.04.2015.  The counsel for Op No.1 further argued that the complainant assured the OP No.1 that she will supply all required documents for getting benefit of CSD discount being widow of defence personnel but the complainant failed to provide the same and as such the benefit of discount under CSD was not granted to her and thus the complainant may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the OP No.1.  Counsel for OP No.4 has simply  argued  that there is even no any iota of allegation against OP No.4 in whole of the complaint and thus complaint qua OP No.4 may kindly be dismissed.

6.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file, it has come on record before the Forum  from the statement of OP No.2 Sh. Dara Singh Virk who has stated on oath on 18.03.2015 that  the complainant had paid  full and final payment of the vehicle in question to the OP No.1 and at that time he was employee of the OP No.1. Besides it, on 20.03.2015, the complainant also produced one Ms. Rajni Sharma, Ex-Cashier of OP No.1 firm who has also tendered a statement on oath before the Forum that  she was working as cashier with  OP No.1 at the time of purchase of the car by the complainant and she knows the complainant very well and the aforesaid complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question and remaining cost of the car was financed by the OP No.5 and  in this way,  price of the car was fully paid by the complainant to the OP No.1.  On perusal of record as well as statements of OP No.2 and Ms. Rajni Sharma, the then Cashier in the OP’s firm, the contention of the complainant appears to be genuine whereas the plea taken by the Op No.1 that the complainant has paid less Rs.50,000/- is not believable because their two employees have stated that the complainant has paid full price of the car in question to OP No.1 in their presence.  Furthermore, if there is any lapse qua non-payment of Rs.50,000/- by the employees of OP No.1 to him, then it is between the OP No.1 and its employees and for that complainant cannot be allowed to suffer and even otherwise, it is a settled law that the Master is fully liable for the acts/deeds of his servants. 

 7.                    Further, it is pertinent to mention here that during the proceedings of the case, the complainant moved an application for interim relief qua issuance of a direction to the Op No.1 to handover the required documents for registration of the vehicle in question and vide order dated 01.04.2015, Op No.1 was directed to handover the required documents of the vehicle in question to the complainant and in compliance of the said order, OP No.1 handed over the documents to the complainant though after filing of application under Section 25 of C.P. Act.  In this way, main grievance of the complainant regarding handing over of documents for registration of the vehicle has been redressed by the Ops after institution of the complaint but the complainant has been deprived of from plying the car on road for about 10 months and has also been forced to pay late fee & extra charges etc. for late registration of the car in question. So, she is entitled for suitable compensation for mental agony, harassment and monetary loss of late registration fee etc. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct the Op No.1 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the date of communication of this order:-

(i)      To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony including monetary loss of late Registration Fee etc.

 

2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP  No.1  within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of default. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

                                                                                            

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT:16.06.2015   

                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                             PRESIDENT                 

                                                                              

     

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                              (ANIL SHARMA)      

                                                                                                     MEMBER