BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.424 of 2019
Date of Instt. 17.09.2019
Date of Decision: 24.04.2023
Rupinder Singh Bhasin aged about 34 years, son of Sh. Jasbir Singh Bhasin resident of H. No.31/5, Jalandhar Cantt District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Kosmo Vehicle Ltd, Near Delhi Public School, G. T. Road, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person/Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Tata Motors Ltd., 4th Floor Ahura Centre & 2 Mahakali Carves Road, MIDC Andheri East Mumbai-400093 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person/Authorized Signatory.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Sunil Bhagat, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. V. K. Attri, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 is an authorized dealer of the OP No.2 and used to sell out the vehicles on behalf of the OP No.2. The complainant has purchased a vehicle SAFARI EX Pearl White having chassis No.MAT403725GND02692 from the OP No.1 vide invoice No.VS/648 dated 1.1.2017 for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,41,473/-. It was assured to the complainant at the time of purchase of the above said vehicle that the registration certificate of the vehicle and all other documents of the vehicle will be delivered to the complainant within a short span of time. The documents were received by the complainant, but the same were not up to date as the wrong registration certificate was received by the complainant and due to that the complainant was unable to deal with the said vehicle further more. When the complainant has purchased the above said vehicle, the Chassis number of the above said vehicle has been mentioned in the original computerized bill as MAT403725GND02692 but the registration certificate has been issued to the complainant by mentioning wrong chassis number in the registration certificate. Thereafter, the complainant visited show room of OP No.1 in order to get servicing of the vehicle, but the officials posted there did not deal with the complainant properly. It was found by the complainant that the OP have supplied a faulty vehicle to the complainant and charged the full and final amount from the complainant. Even then when the vehicle was called for by the OP for necessary repairs of the faulty components time and again and during the repair period one dump collecting vehicle of the opposite party hit the vehicle of the complainant on 25.8.2017 and the vehicle of the complainant got damaged badly. Thereafter the officials of the OP have applied for insurance claim and then the complainant found that a wrong chassis number has been mentioned in the registration certificate of the vehicle of the complainant. Even the complainant has got dry cleaned the newly purchased vehicle as it was in a very bad condition at the time of its purchase. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP to rectify the error in the registration certificate and has also deposited registration certificate with the OP, but till today the OP dilly delayed the matter on the one pretext or the other even without any fault on the part of the complainant. From 25.8.2017 the registration certificate of the complainant is retained with the OP and did not hand over the same to the complainant. The complainant requested the OP time and again but the OP failed to give back the registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant from the last two years. Due to illegal acts and conducts of the OP as fully mentioned above, the complainant suffered a lot mentally, physically, financially and the value of the vehicle got decreased from its original value. The legal notice dated 01.07.2019 has been duly served upon the OP by the complainant, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to replace the said defective vehicle or pay the cost of vehicle to the complainant alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum till the actual date of realization of the amount from the date of purchase of the said vehicle. Further, OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss etc and litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as the same is based upon wrong, false and frivolous facts, as the complainant is guilty of materially concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Forum with unclean hands with the sole intention of deceiving this Forum. It is further averred that the complainant's suppression and concealment is evident from the fact that inspite of repeated requests and reminders made by the answering OP, the complainant is not receiving the R.C. Moreover, the answering OP never denied the service to the complainant and is always ready and willing to provide service to the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant was never supplied with faulty vehicle. Rather as per the instructions of the complainant the answering OP got the necessary repairs of the vehicle of the complainant, which met with an accident and till date the answering OP has not received any payment from the insurance company of the vehicle of the complainant, but answering OP did not charge the complainant for the complete invoice rather only depreciation was taken from the complainant. In fact, the registration certificate of vehicle has already been prepared and the complainant was approached by the staff of answering OP many times to receive said Registration Certificate (R.C.) of his vehicle, but it is the complainant who is not receiving the RC despite repeated requests and reminders made by the answering OP and has filed false and frivolous complaint by concealing the true and material facts in order to get wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the answering OP and in order to extract money from the answering OP. It is further averred that the complainant has failed to disclose all the facts before this Forum which if disclosed would have indicated that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant against the answering OP. The facts narrated by the complainant have been represented in a misleading manner. It is further averred that the present complaint is misuse of process of law and has been filed in order to extract money from the answering OP. Moreover, the chassis number is never written by the answering OP rather the same is to be traced on the paper from the chassis of the vehicle, so if the mistake if any is on the part of DTO office. It is further averred that the complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit and has made this complaint in order to raise a premeditated, false and frivolous prosecution. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that the chassis number is never written by the answering OP rather the same is to be traced on the paper from the chassis of the vehicle, so if the mistake if any is on the part of DTO office and the complainant has not impleaded DTO being is a necessary party in the present complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the vehicle by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is without any cause of action against the answering OP. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the party. The answering OP being a manufacturer of the vehicle in question, has nothing to do with the present controversy and have no privity of contract with the complainant. The entire sale transaction has been carried out between the complainant and OP No.1, thus, there arose no question to implead this answering OP as a necessary party in the present dispute. Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of the party. It is further averred that the complaint against this answering OP is not maintainable as the answering OP has nothing to do with the main grouse of the Complainant i.e. the OP No. 1 had delivered the registration certificate of the vehicle with incorrect chassis number. As per information received, the incorrect details got rectified by the OP No. 1 and as per the corrected registration certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Jalandhar which contains the correct particulars of the vehicle in question. As such the complaint is without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the vehicle is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant and counsel for the OP No.2 very minutely.
7. It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the vehicle Safari EX Pearl White having chassis No.MAT403725GND02692 in the month of January, 2017. The invoice has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-3. It is admitted and proved fact that the complainant received the documents i.e. RC and all other documents from the OP, but the complainant has alleged that he received the documents late. The complainant has alleged that the wrong RC was received by him and due to that, he was unable to deal with the vehicle further more. As per the allegations of the complainant, the chassis number has wrongly been mentioned in the RC. Perusal of Ex.C-3 shows that the chassis number has been mentioned as ‘MAT403725GND02692’. Perusal of Ex.C-6 shows that the last digits have wrongly been mentioned in it in place of the digits 2692, the digits 6292 has been mentioned. The insurance was got done by the complainant of the vehicle and as per RC Ex.C-6, the chassis number has been mentioned in Ex.C-7. Even in the RTA Department, the number has been mentioned as 6292 instead of 2692. So, it is admitted and proved fact that wrong chassis number was mentioned in the RC and the application vide which the RC was applied. The complainant has alleged that despite number of requests the rectified RC has not been supplied to the complainant, whereas the contention of the OPs is that it is the complainant who has never approached the OPs regarding the mistake nor this fact was brought into notice of the OPs by the complainant. The complainant was having full knowledge of the mistake and he kept mum for the period of two years and when the mistake came to their knowledge, the same was rectified. The complainant was approached, but he never visited the OPs to collect the RC.
8. Perusal of Ex.C-3 shows that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 01.01.2017 having chassis number MAT403725GND02692. As per Ex.C-4, the service of the vehicle was got done by the complainant in which the chassis number as per the invoice Ex.C-3 was mentioned and this service was got done on 31.08.2017 i.e. after 8 months of the purchase of the vehicle and the service request was ‘accident’ since, the same was within warranty, therefore it was mentioned that warranty was not expired. As per Ex.C5, the fourth free service was got done by the complainant on 26.11.2018 with the chassis number as per Ex.C-3 and there was no mention of the fact that the chassis number has been wrongly mentioned in the RC Ex.C-6. This clearly shows that the accident took place nearly 31.08.2017 as the service regarding accident was done on 31.08.2017 and the allegations of the complainant that the insurance amount has not been paid to him till now is not tenable as till that time, he might have come to know that the wrong chassis number has been mentioned in Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-8, but he never approached the OPs as per allegations of the OPs rather he got the fourth free service done on 26.11.2018 and till that time also, he did not get the RC rectified. After 2 ½ years of the purchase of the vehicle, he approached this Commission. The RC has already been rectified as per the submission of the OPs. The complainant has sent the notice on 01.07.2019 vide Ex.C-1 to the OP and in the notice, the complainant has not asked the OPs to give him rectified RC rather he has asked the OPs to tender unconditional apology as the vehicle was parked due to the negligent act of the OP. In para No.7 of the notice, the complainant has alleged that he requested to the noticee i.e. OP to rectify the error in the RC, but the OP did not do the needful. In reply to this Para No.7 of the notice by the OP in Ex.OP-2, the OP has categorically alleged that the complainant was approached by the staff of OP to receive the RC, as the RC of the vehicle has already been prepared, but it is the complainant who is not receiving the RC despite repeated requests and reminders. From the reply to the notice, as well as the written statement filed in the complaint, it is proved that the RC was prepared with wrong chassis number and the same was rectified by the OP. Despite reply to the notice to the complainant, the complainant has not approached the OP. The complainant has alleged that the OP did not attend him properly as his vehicle got damaged and he is unable to drive the vehicle and the same is parked at home, but this contention of the complainant is against the documents filed by him. Ex.C-4 shows that on 31.08.2017 when he sent his vehicle for service due to accident, the kilometers mentioned in Ex.C-4 were 5298, whereas in Ex.C-5 on 26.11.2018 i.e. after three months of the service due to accident, the KMs mentioned in Ex.C-5 is 15833. This fact itself shows that the vehicle was not parked rather the same was being plied by the complainant. Despite the offer/request through the written reply to the notice, the complainant has not approached the OPs to collect RC and opted to file the present complaint in the Commission. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
24.04.2023 Member Member President
