STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.,CHANDIGARH
Complaint Case No | : | 32 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 14.05.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 28.11.2013 |
Mr. Gursimran Singh Walia, son of Sh. Kawaljit Singh Walia, resident of House No.523, Sector 36-B,Chandigarh.
……Complainant.
VERSUS
1.M/s Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Plot No.171, Industrial Area, Phase I,Chandigarh, through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory (Authorized dealer of AudiIndia).
2.M/s. AudiIndia,3 North Avenue, Level-3, Maker Maxity, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, through its President/Managing Director/Director (deleted vide order dated 09.07.2013).
3.Mr.Amit Gupta, Sales Representative, M/s Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Limited, Plot No.171, Industrial Area, Phase I,Chandigarh.
4.The Registering and Licencing Authority, Sector 17,Chandigarh.
5.Indian Overseas Bank, Main Branch, Sector 7-C,Chandigarh.
Complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by: Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate for the complainant
Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for Opposite Party No.4.
Sh.Charanjiv Singh Pasricha, Advocate for Opposite Party No.5
Name of Opposite Party No.2, deleted vide order dated09.07.2013.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD) PRESIDENT.
Chandigarh, duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It was stated that the complainant, and the Company, aforesaid, have separate and distinct entities. It was further stated that the complainant intended to purchase a new luxury car of Audi make, for his personal use. He contacted Opposite Party No.1, being the authorized dealer of Audi cars, inChandigarh, and had meetings with its representative, at a Hotel, where he (complainant), alongwith his family, was residing. Finally, on 02.02.2012, the complainant visited the showroom of Opposite Party No.1,
2. Chandigarh, alongwith his family. It was further stated that since the complainant did not have a true residential address, the Officials of Opposite Party No.5, mentioned his office address as SCO 491-492, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, on the Credit Sanction Advice, Annexure C-4. It was further stated that since this fact was well within the knowledge of the Officials of Opposite Party No.1, initially, Performa Invoice was issued by it, in the name of the complainant, without mentioning any address therein.
3.
4. 5. 6. Chandigarh, and was handed over to him (Mr. Amit Gupta).
7.
8. was also filed in respect of the car, in question, in which this Commission, while holding the complainant, as a consumer, dismissed the
9.
10. Opposite Party No.1, was deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. It was further stated that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, through every possible means with a request, to issue the correct title documents, in his name, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, for directing the Opposite Parties, to issue the correct title documents, in the name of the complainant, in respect of the car, in question, alongwith corrected new Transfer Registration Certificate, or in the alternative, to refund the entire amount paid by him, towards the price thereof, alongwith interest @18% P.A., from 03.02.2012, till realization; pay a sum of Rs.1,14,147/-, on account of increased road tax;
11. Consumer Complaint bearing No.46 of 2012 titled as Sh.Gursimran Singh Walia Vs.Gursimran Singh Walia Vs.New Delhi, which is still pending. It was further stated that the instant complaint was also liable to be dismissed, as any adjudication of the subject matter, contained therein shall amount to recall/review of the order dated 18.03.2013, passed by this Commission, which was not permissible under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only). It was further stated that the complainant is not a consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Act, as neither there was sale of any vehicle, to him, nor any privity of contract came into being, between him and Opposite Party No.1.
12. M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited, which is a juristic person, a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having an independent commercial and business entity, with independent shareholders and Directors. It was further stated that the complainant did not intentionally attach copy of the invoice of the vehicle, issued by Opposite Party No.1, and, thus, tried to mislead this Commission. It was further stated that, on 02.02.2012, the complainant contacted and reported Opposite Party No.1, that he was one of the Directors ofM/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited, and that the said Company, intended to purchase a newAudi A6 2.0 TDI car (Colour Phanton Black with brown interior), for its business purposes. It was further stated that, the complainant requested Opposite Party No.1, to issue Performa Invoice, in his name, but further represented that the said car, shall be purchased by the Company aforesaid.Audi A6 2.0 TDI car (Colour Phanton Black with brown interior), was prepared by Opposite Party No.1, which had been annexed, by the complainant,
13. . It was further stated thatLudhianaChandigarh. It was further stated that the delivery of car was taken by a representative of the Company aforesaid.M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited,
14. M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited,M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited,M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited,M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited,
15.
16.
17.
18.
19. The complainant, in support of his case, submitted his own affidavit, by way of evidence, alongwith which, a number of documents were attached.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25. , in paragraph number 9, it was, in clear-cut terms, stated by the complainant, that since Opposite Parties (No.1 and 2) failed to issue the correct title documents, as per the purchase order, Performa invoice etc., the vehicle could not be got registered, with the concerned Authorities.and,Jaycee Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and others,on the same cause of action, was entertained, inquired into and dismissed, on merits, the instant complaint, on the same cause of action, was not maintainable, as it is barred by the principles of
26. . with a That complaint was finally heard, and decided vide order dated 18.03.2013, Annexure C-14. Against the said order dated 18.03.2013, passed in the earlier Consumer Complaint, the complainant has already filedFirst Appeal No.321 of 2013 titled asGursimran Singh Walia Vs., in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which is pending decision. . Annexure A-14 is the satisfaction note, in the name of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited. Endorsement was also made on Annexure-7, by the complainant, that he had received all the documents, relating to the vehicle. At the time of receipt of the documents, the complainant very well knew that the same were issued, in the name of M/s Commando Caterers Pvt. Limited. In these circumstances, the principles contained in Section 11 and Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, shall be applicable to the instant Complaint. It is, no doubt, true that the strict provisions of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable, to the complaints, before the Consumer Foras, yet, the principles analogous tores-judicata
27.
“The doctrine of
28. New Delhi, inRevision Petition No.1767 of 2006, titled as Maruti Udyog Limited Vs. K.V. Krishnam Raju and Ors., decided on 08.10.2010 also held that the principles analogous to
29. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with costs, quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
30. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
31.
Pronounced.
November 28, 2013
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
Rg.
