DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.213/2010
Mrs. Sindhu Sondhi
2/12, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar-4,
New Delhi-110024 ….Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.
3C’s Complex, 15 Feroz Gandhi Marg,
Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
Also at:
Competent House
F-14 Connaught Place
New Delhi-110001
2. Mr. M. M. Joshi
Manager
M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.
3C’s Complex, 15 Feroz Gandhi Marg,
Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
3. Mr. Amit Tyagi
Sales Manager
M/s Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.
3C’s Complex, 15 Feroz Gandhi Marg,
Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
4. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
Plot No.1
Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 08.04.2010 Date of Order : 20.11.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the complainant alongwith her husband, namely, Sh. Naresh Sondhi visited the showroom of the OP No.1 on 14.07.2009 and made a booking for purchase of a brand new Maruti Wagon-R (LX-I Model) car by depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance money vide receipt No. 11121 dated 14.07.2009. Thereafter, the complainant alongwith her husband visited the showroom and the OP No.3 issued them invoice dated 19.07.09 in which the on-road price of Rs.3,39,919/- was quoted for the purchase of a brand new car. It is submitted that M/s Punjab & Sind Bank advanced a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. On 24.07.2009 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- vide DD dated 24.07.2009 and further made a payment of Rs.49,200/- in cash and thus the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.3,59,200/- towards the total price of the car alongwith additional accessories to OP No.1 and the vehicle was registered as DL-AC-AK-6457. It is submitted that the complainant was shocked to gain knowledge subsequently when the car was brought back from the first free service on 23.08.2009. The very fact of such fraud being played upon the complainant came to her knowledge only on perusal of the job card No.JC09012268 dated 23.8.2009. It is evident that vide job card No.JC09007837 dated 30.06.2009 a repair in the nature of denting and painting was undertaken on the car and an amount of Rs.8,554.85 was reflected in the vehicle history of the job card No. JC09012268 dated 23.08.09 and the mileage clocked in the job card as on 30.06.09 was recorded as 83 kms. whereas the booklet handed over to her at the time of delivery showed recorded mileage as 10 kms. It is evident from the records that the OPs intentionally played a fraud and they knew that the car was not a brand new one. On 25.08.09 the complainant visited the OP No.3 and informed them that she had paid full price for a brand new car. She waited for OP No.2 but nobody turned up. Again she visited on 26.08.09 where again she had waited for over one hour and only thereafter repeated requests she had met the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 bluntly denied to compensate her in any manner. “The complainant once again visited the showroom on 27.08.09 accompanied by her cousin and requested the representative of the opposite party No.1 to replace her car or duly compensate her by refunding her the entire sum paid by her in lieu of the car being returned by her to the company.” The OP No.2 stated that she should forget about the replacement of the car and also for any compensation. As no proper reply was received from the OPs she sent a legal notice on 09.11.09 to the OPs but they failed to reply. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions to the OPs:-
- to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith 18% pendentelite and future interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
- to replace the car with a brand new car of the like model and accessories installed.
- Costs.
OP No. 1 to 3 in their joint written statement have inter-alia stated that the complainant has concealed the material fact that when she approached them with the apprehension that the OP No.1 to 3 had sold her an accidental vehicle she was clearly explained that the vehicle sold to her was not old and/ or accidental. “It was the new car which was during the transportation of the vehicle from OP No.4’s workshop at Gurgaon to Pre Delivery Inspection Place of the OP at Lajpat Nagar, the vehicle got minor scratches which were removed by the opposite party at their workshop.” It is denied that any old car or accidental car was sold to her. Inspite of clearly explaining this, the complainant was not satisfied with the same and went on to file the present complaint. It is also denied that there was any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1 to 3 which requires a payment of compensation of Rs.4 lacs to the complainant. OP No.1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
OP No.4 has inter-alia stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP No.4 as defined u/s 2(1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant neither entered into an agreement for sale of goods (car) nor hired any service for consideration with OP No.4. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed separate rejoinders and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Surender Singh, Showroom Manager on behalf of the OP No.1 to 3 and affidavit of Sh. Thakur Karan Singh, Manager (legal) have been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed. Oral arguments are heard.
It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased a car from OP No.1 to 3 manufactured by OP No.4 for a total sum of Rs.326879/- on or about 19.07.2009. The copy of job card dated 23.08.09 is Ex. A/2. The copy of the legal notice dated 09.09.2009 is Ex. A/3 which was sent to the OPs. It is admitted by OP No.1 to 3 that during the transportation of the vehicle the vehicle had received certain minor scratches which were repaired and rectified by the OP No.1 to 3 at their workshop at Mehrauli, Delhi. OP No.1 to 3 were duty bound to disclose this fact to the complainant at the time of selling car but they did not do so. When the complainant came to know about the scratches she approached the OP No.1 to 3 but they did not pay any heed. Admittedly, the complainant had paid the full price of a new car. As soon as the car in question got scratches etc. on its body before its delivery to the complainant and OP No.1 to 3 had carried out certain repairs in it, it ceased to be a brand new car for which OP No.1 to 3 had taken the full price from the complainant. The OP No.1 to 3 suppressed this very material fact from the complainant and thus not only caused mental harassment to the complainant but also loss of reputation to OP No.4 manufacturing company.
Accordingly, we hold the OP No.1 guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. We allow the complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) in lumpsum to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment undergone by the Complainant including cost of litigation
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.1 shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 20.11.2017.
