Haryana

Karnal

CC/15/2018

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Globe Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Sharma

26 Feb 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.15 of 2018

                                                         Date of instt. 11.01.2018

                                                         Date of decision:26.02.2019

 

Vijay Kumar son of Shri Daya Nand Sharma, aged 41 years, resident of House no.1676 sector-9 U.E. Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

M/s Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. G.T. Road Karnal (near Madhuban)

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

       

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri Ram Kishan Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Surender Kumar Advocate for OP.

                               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had bought one used car Model-ETIOS LIVE GD bearing Registration no.HR 14K-4002 colour black from the aforesaid OP for a consideration of Rs.2,97,500/-. The said car was damaged in an accident and had been declared as total loss by the insurance company (M/s Bharti Axa) and was never been disclosed by the OP to the complainant at the time of sale i.e. June 2017. It is further alleged that from the date of purchase of car, the said car is encountering number of defects and is not functioning properly being despite the regular visits to the workshop of OP/the authorized workshops for the repair and replacement of numerous defective parts of the said car. Still the Engineer of the OP is unable to make the said car as safe and road worthy even today. From the date of purchase i.e. June 2017 till today the complainant has spent Rs.59,450/- towards the repair and replacement of the parts of the abovesaid car during various visits. The complainant has been making correspondence with the OP through e-mail dated 9^th September, 2017, 19.09.2017, 26.09.2017 and 29.11.2017 but no positive response given to the complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant purchased the pre-owned vehicle in question from the OP on 24.05.2017. At the time of purchase, the OP duly explained to the complainant that the said vehicle is a non-certified vehicle and the same carries no warranty. The complainant was further made aware that the vehicle will be sold to him on “as is where is basis.” Complainant after satisfying with the vehicle in question agreed to the purchase the said vehicle on “as is where is basis” for Rs.2,97,500/-. At that point of time the odometer reading of the vehicle was 63778 Kms. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP to carry out certain miscellaneous work in the vehicle in question and he will make the payment for the same alongwith the payment for the purchase of the vehicle at the time of taking the delivery of the vehicle in question. Upon the request of the complainant, OP opened the job order dated 25.05.2017 and OP carried out the misc. work. After opening the job order complainant paid an advance of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, the tax invoice was generated on 30.05.2017 for Rs.29877/- and complainant paid the said amount. Thereafter, on 3.6.2017 complainant requested the OP to replace the front disc. and OP replaced the same. The complainant also transferred an amount of Rs.2,97,500/- in the account of OP towards the purchase of the vehicle in question. Thereafter, the vehicle in question reported to the dealership of the OP on 28.10.2017 for misc. work. At that point of time vehicle had clocked 87887 Kms. Complainant did not lodged any complaint as alleged by him in the instant complaint. Thereafter, the vehicle in question reported to the dealership of the OP on 28.11.2017 for 90000 Km service. At that point of time vehicle had clocked 90679 Kms. Complainant did not lodge any complaint as alleged by him in the complaint. Hence the allegations of the complainant that the vehicle in question was a total loss vehicle are not sustainable. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA, and documents Ex.CA-1 to Ex.CA-24 and closed the evidence on 9.7.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R24 and closed the evidence on 8.1.2019.

5.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that he purchased a second hand car model Etios Live GD, bearing registration no.HR-14-K-4002 from OP for a consideration of Rs.2,97,500/-. The said car was damaged in an accident and was declared as total loss by the insurance company i.e. M/s Bharti Axa. This fact was never disclosed by the OP to the complainant at the time of purchasing. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.59450/- towards repair and replacement of the parts of the said car during various visits in the premises of OP. The complainant made several complaints through emails and telephonic calls but no positive response was given to the complainant by the OP. The act and conduct of the OP towards the complainant amounts to breach of trust, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the complainant purchased the pre-owned vehicle in question from the OP on 24.05.2017. The said car is a non-certified vehicle and same carries no warranty. The complainant was further made aware that the vehicle will be sold to him on “as is where is basis”. After getting satisfied with the vehicle, the complainant purchased the said vehicle. At that point of time the odometer reading of the vehicle was 63778 Kms. On 28.10.2017 when the complainant brought vehicle in question in the showroom of the OP at that time the odometer reading was 87887 Kms. The complainant did not lodge any complaint as alleged by him in his present complaint. On 28.11.2017 when the complainant brought vehicle in question in the showroom of the OP for service, at that time the odometer reading was 90679 Kms there was again no complaint as alleged in his present complaint.

8.             Further, The OP purchased the vehicle in question for further sale to the prospective customers, first of all they check the RC and valid insurance of the vehicle in question. Then another parameters of the vehicle are checked such as condition of the vehicle, whether the vehicle is total loss vehicle or not etc., for checking/confirming the OP login in TOPSERV website maintained by the Toyota (manufacturer company). Then the vehicle registration number is entered in the screen. Thereafter, the customer and vehicle details appear on screen. If the vehicle is total loss case then the pup up appears on the LH side of the screen. As such even as on date if the vehicle registration number of the car of the complainant is entered in the same the vehicle registration and customer details appears on the screen and no pop up qua total loss is shown. The allegation of the complainant that the vehicle in question was a total loss, vehicle is not sustainable. Had the vehicle in question been a total loss case, then the RC of the vehicle in question would have been surrendered/punched with the RTO and thereafter the vehicle is declared as a total loss vehicle and amount of IDV value of the vehicle is released to the insured. Further insurance of the vehicle would not have taken place.

9.             Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant from OP for the consideration of Rs.2,97,500/-. The allegation of the complainant in the complaint is that the OP sold the total loss vehicle to the complainant without disclosing this fact at the time of purchasing the vehicle. On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the vehicle in question was not total loss at the time of purchase but was only a used car.

10.           The complainant relied upon the document (Ex.CA-7) in which the vehicle in question was declared as total loss by the insurance company and invoice date of said document is 14.07.2015 and date of service is mentioned as 06.12.2014. The previous owner of vehicle in question was Satpal Singh resident of Karnal. As per copy of insurance policy (Ex.R17) valid from 20.02.2017 to 19.02.2018, the IDV value of said car was Rs.3,50,000/-. When the insurance company insured the vehicle in question vide insurance policy (Ex.OP17), then it cannot be considered that vehicle in question was a total loss vehicle at that time.

11.           Further, when the OP purchased the vehicle in question then the registration number was login on the TOPSERV website of Toyota then the customer and vehicle details appears on the screen. If the vehicle in question was total loss then a pop up was to appear on LH side of screen but in this case no such pop up appeared on the screen. Thus, we are of the considered view that the vehicle in question was not a total loss vehicle. Moreover, on 28.11.2017 when the complainant brought vehicle in question in the showroom of the OP for service at that time the odometer reading was 90679 Kms. It proves that the vehicle in question was also roadworthy on 28.11.2017. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we do not find any merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:26.02.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member