District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 627/2021
Date of Institution:07.12.2021.
Date of Order:.17.08.2023.
Raj Kumar Khatri, age 69 Years S/o Shri M.R.Khatri, R/o House No. 2812, Sector-7A, Green Park, Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Cars24 Services Private Limited, 10th floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector-39, Gurugram – 122001, Haryana through its Directors Email.ID th floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Prk, Sector-39, Gurugram – 122001, Haryana.
3. Ruchit Agarwal, Director, M/s. Cars24 Services Private Limited, 10th floor, Tower-B, Unitech Cyber Park, Sector-39, Gurgram – 122001, Haryana.
4. Shiv Trading Company through its Director, Himanshu Grover, Office at- 118, Railway Road, Near Railway station, Ward No.8, Maur Mandi, Bathinda, Punjab – 151509.
…Opposite parties
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Atul Khatri, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Arun Katoch, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.
Opposite party No.4 exparte vide order dated 30.01.2023.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant owned and possessed one car make Hyundai Verma Fludic 1.6 CRDI bearing chassis No. 58557, Engine No. 91579 bearing regd. No. HR29AC0350. Complainant was interested to sell its above said car therefore being induced and lured by opposite parties, advertisement, approached the opposite party No.1 through its branch office at NH-5, Railway road, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana in the month of Feb-March 2019. Based upon car inspection report by their team experts vide appointment id No. 1106499014, opposite party No.1 had offered the complainant best price of his car at Rs.2,90,000/- against which complainant consented for the same and sold his car to the opposite party No.1 and accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,86,000/- was credited by opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 to the complainant after deduction of Rs.4000/- on account of instant payment charge and service charge. At the time of delivery of vehicle, opposite party No.1 through opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 assured the complainant about transfer of ownership of car as soon as possible, however the maximum time period for the same was about 120 to 180 days due to finalization of end buyer and RTO requirements. Complainant agreed for the same and thus opposite party No.1 got signed various documents including Form 29, 30, sale letters, affidavits etc. form the complainant. Further, opposite party No.1 at the time of delivery of car ensure the complainant about its seller protection policy which said that till the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the end buyer, opposite party No.1
company should provide protection with respect to any liabilities covering till Rs.5 lakhs whatsoever arising due to the use of the vehicle for and during the period of pending transfer of the registration certificate.
Thereafter, on 24.2.2021, once again complainant approached the opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 through its serving branch at Sector-7, Faridabad and enquired about the status of transfer of RC, but again the same answer was given to the complainant, but this time complainant lodged written online complaint against which opposite party No.1 sent an email to the complainant while admitted delay in RC transfer and also apologize for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and asked the complainant to provide another 60 working days from the complainant for the transfer. Complainant had no other option except to admit their request and thus waited for the same. Abruptly, again on 27.03.2021, another email was sent by opposite party No.1 to the complainant apprising about extending of time till indefinite period for transfer process as opposite party No.1 had taken some legal action against the erring channel partner, and it would take some time. The complainant was astonished to see the same last 2 years same thing were going on again and again and transfer of RC from the complainant’s name was still pending form opposite party’s end. Recently, the complainant comes to know through Vahan website that a challan u/s 179(1), 194B(1) of MV Act dated 30.07.2021 was pending against the complainant in RTO, Ganganagar, Rajasthan and the same was still unpaid by the current owner which clearly shows that the car bearing No. HR29AC0350 had been sold to third party at Ganganagar, but the registration of car was still in the name of the complainant which not only strikes mental tension to the complainant rather there was always an apprehension of some unlawful activity by the third party or some kind of involvement in road accident etc. The complainant had sold its car to opposite party No.1 on the assurance of transfer of
RC by opposite party No.1 within the time frame provided by opposite party No.1 but till date opposite party No.1 was not able to transfer the RC rather every time sought time on one pretext or the other which showed the lightness of attitude by opposite party no.1 for transferring the RC of the complainant. Although, the opposite parties owned the liability, if any arises in future of the complainant by providing seller protection policy to the complainant, but the same was a limited liability and having various do and did not provision therefore complainant was not satisfied by the same rather want to transfer the RC at their end as soon as possible. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) transfer the RC of the car bearing NO. HR29AC0350 model Hyundai Verna Fludic 1.6 CRDI bearing chasis No. 58557 engine No. 91579 from the complainant’s name to the end buyer or inn their own name immediately.
b) to dispose off the challan bearing dated 30.07.2021 issued by RTO, Ganganagar immediately.
c) pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the complaint may also be granted in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the vehicle bearing registration NO. HR29AC0350, Hyundai Verna was sold by the complainant to opposite party No.1 by entering and executing an agreement namely as the Customer Application Form
dated 09.03.2019.It was imperative to mention that opposite party No.1 was engaged in the business of operating an ecommerce portal for the same and purchase of pre-owned/used cars and act as an intermediary for the facilitation of sale and purchase of the vehicles between the seller (who desire to sell their vehicle) and dealer (who desires to purchases the vehicle and further sell and transfer the ownership of the vehicle to the prospective buyer). Furthermore, that opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 were the directors/founders of the opposite party No.1 who were never directly or indirectly related to any of the transactions of any of the vehicle being sold or purchased either by seller or dealer. In the instance, the concern vehicle was further sold by the opposite party No.1 to a dealer, who showed his interest in purchasing the concern vehicle with whom the opposite party No.1 worked on a principle to principle basis, wherein a separate agreement was executed with the concern dealer namely vehicle transaction form , where the concern dealer after purchasing the concern vehicle from opposite party No.1 sells the same to the prospective buyer and undertakes to transfer the ownership within 90 days from the date of delivery of the concern vehicle. It was imperative to mention that post the delivery of the concern vehicle, the concern dealer undertakes and took full liability and responsibility to get the ownership transferred to the end buyer within stipulated time period i.e 90 days from the date of delivery of the concern vehicle and further any issue that any arise in relation of the concern vehicle. After exceeding of the period of 90 days from the date of delivery of the vehicle i.e 13.09.2091, the dealer had failed to comply with the agreed terms of the vehicle transaction form to transfer the ownership of the concern vehicle to the end buyer. It was imperative to mention that constant follow up and reminders were sent to the dealer to comply with the terms of the agreement executed with him, however, he did not pay any heed. Further to expedite the process of transfer the
ownership of the concern vehicle, legal notice had been issued upon the concern dealer vide dated 06.06.2022 asking to comply with the terms of the vehicle transaction form and to transfer of ownership of the concern vehicle in the name of the end buyer. Until the RC was transferred to the end buyer, opposite party No.1 ensures to protect the complainant under the Customer Protection Policy, wherein the customer did not have to worry about the hassle of the transfer of ownership to the end buyer and furthermore the opposite party No.1 extended various benefits to the complainant including ready assistance, legal support and cover upto 5 lacs which had already been shared and communicated to the complainant. Opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.4 on dated 09.01.2023 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery confirmed”. In the interest of justice, opposite party No.4 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.01.2023.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Raj Kumar Khatri, Ex.C-1 – legal notice, Ex.C2 to c4 – postal receipts,, Ex.C-5 – Vehicle delivery acknowledgement receipt,, Ex.C-6 – detailed invoice,, Ex.C-7 – certificate, Ex.C-8 (colly) – email dated 27.03.2021, Ex.C-9 – email dated 10.03.2019, Ex.C-10 – Vehicle owner details of registration number.
On the other hand ,counsel for the opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite parties Annexure 1 - to whomsoever it may concern,, Annexure R/2 – Customer application form-Delivery,, Annexure R/3 – Vehicle transaction form,, Annx.R/4 – legal notice,, Annexure R/5 – email dated 10.03.2019.
6. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to: a) transfer the RC of the car bearing NO. HR29AC0350 model Hyundai Verna Fludic 1.6 CRDI bearing chasis No. 58557 engine No. 91579 from the complainant’s name to the end buyer or inn their own name immediately. b) to dispose off the challan bearing dated 30.07.2021 issued by RTO, Ganganagar immediately. c) pay Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the complaint may also be granted in favour of the complainants and against the opposite parties.
7. After going through the evidence led by the complainant as well as the opposite parties, the email was sent for the transfer of the vehicle in question on 10.03.2019 vide Ex.C9.
8. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party failed to establish their case whether the vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Himanshu Grover i.e opposite party No.4 who is the Director of Shiv Trading Company. It is very serious issue to transfer of the vehicle. The insurance company is only liable for 15 days time to transfer the vehicle as per MV Act.
9. Keeping in view of the above submissions, it seems that the complainant who is retired Reader of the Court after getting so many harassment he has filed this complaint to transfer the vehicle in question in their name. It is
already 4 years spent merely on the transfer of the vehicle in question. Hence, the complaint is allowed.
10. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, jointly & severally, are directed to transfer the RC of the car bearing No. HR29AC0350 model Hyundai Verna Fludic 1.6 CRDI bearing chassis No. 58557 from the complainant’s name within 15 days from this order. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment to the complainant. In case, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 fails to transfer the vehicle in question within 30 days, opposite parties will pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 17.08.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
