BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.   62 of 2015

                                  Date of institution:           12.02.2015

                                              Date of Decision:             07.08.2015

Sandeep Kumar son of Sohan Kumar resident of village Behrampur Bet, Tehsil Chyamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

                                       ……..Complainant                     Versus

1.     M/s. Macro Ventures Private Limited, through its Director or its authorised person having office at B-56, Industrial Area, Phase-6, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2.     Darshan Singh son of Jaswant Singh son of Mehr Singh resident of village Khanpur, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, Post office, Haffizabad, Pin Code 140111.

        (Name of O.P. No.2 deleted vide zimni order dated 03.06.2015)

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ARGUMENTS HEARD AND DECIDED BY

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Simrandeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Shri M.S. Longia, counsel for O.P. No.1.

O.P. No.2 already given up.

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member)

ORDER

                The brief history of this complaint:

                The complainant earlier filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar vide complaint No.92 of 07.08.2014 which stands decided on 01.01.2015. The Ld. District Forum, Ropar dismissed the complaint on the point that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint alongwith liberty to avail remedy for redressal of his grievance before appropriate Forum.

                Brief facts of complaint:

                The complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 (hereinafter referred as ‘O.P.’) in order to purchase a new car. O.P. No.1 insisted the complainant to purchase the vehicle i.e. Indigo ECS LS TDI having colour as Procelain white and assured the complainant that this is a brand new car. Complainant believing the O.P. No.1 in good faith purchased vehicle vide invoice Number MACVEN-1415-00045 dated 31.05.2014 for Rs.5,07,425/- (total amount including taxes) having Chassis Number MAT 607331EPC06898 and Engine Number 475IDT14CVYP10909. OP No.1 provided no other document to the complainant on 31.05.2014. The complainant asked O.P. No.1 for other documents but O.P. No.1 told him that these documents would be sent to the complainant by post as they are to be signed by superior officer of O.P. No.1. When it was time to get the first free service from O.P. No.1, the complainant visited O.P. No.1 and got his vehicle serviced. O.P. No.1 gave the owner’s manual and service book to the complainant from where coupon of first service was taken by O.P. No.1 and other three coupons were also given to the complainant with the service book. O.P. No.1 also handed over the tax invoice of free service dated 21.06.2014 to the complainant. The complainant was shocked to see that in the invoice the name of some other person namely Darshan Singh, Shiva Travel, Village Khanpur has been mentioned and even on the coupons the details of invoice are different and they have been issued on 15.03.2014. This proves that the vehicle was earlier sold to Darshan Singh and these coupons were issued to him.  On enquiry from O.P. No.1 in this regard, the complainant was informed that earlier this vehicle was booked by Darshan Singh and it was sold to him but due to technical fault, the vehicle was returned to O.P. no.1 by him and O.P. No.1 after rectifying the fault in the vehicle sold this second hand vehicle to the complainant stating it to be brand new. The complainant mentioned that if the vehicle was only booked by someone and that person did not come to purchase the vehicle, then any dealer or company would not incorporate his details in the system because the vehicle has not yet been sold.  If this vehicle was only booked by Darshan Singh and he did not purchase the vehicle then the question arises that how the details of Darshan Singh came in the tax invoice dated 21.06.2014? This shows that the vehicle was earlier sold to Darshan Singh and his details were incorporated in the system but he returned the vehicle to O.P. No.1.  The complainant alleged that O.P. No.1 very smartly made a fool of the complainant by selling him this second hand and pre booked vehicle stating it to be brand new vehicle. O.P. no.1 had the knowledge that the vehicle which was sold to the complainant had already been sold to Darshan Singh and the vehicle was second hand and even repaired by it and O.P. No.1 sold the vehicle to the complainant by charging full amount which is price of a brand new vehicle. The invoice, cover note and temporary certificate of registration of the car are dated 31.05.2014 which shows that O.P. No.1 sold the vehicle to the complainant stating it to be brand new but in actual the vehicle was not at all new rather it was used and had been sold earlier. The complainant was not able to get the vehicle registered till date because O.P. No.1 has not provided him with all necessary documents i.e. Form No.22, PDI report, PUCC and other documents which are necessary documents for registration. The complainant cannot drive the car and took his family and friends for a ride because there are chances of impounding of the vehicle without registration. Even if now O.P. No.1 hands over the necessary documents then the complainant would be burdened with fine from transport department for late registration fee. The purpose of purchasing new vehicle was that it can be used by the complainant and his family for their personal use but after all this blunder done by O.P. No.1, the desire, wishes of the complainant and his family had been extinguished and complainant is not able to use this vehicle in the way it should have been utilized by him.  The complainant stated that after having the knowledge about all this unfair practice by O.P. No.1, the complainant and his family were emotionally hurt.  It amounts to deficiency in service as  O.P. No.1 has intentionally made the complainant to suffer losses and sold a pre booked, sold, second hand, used, repaired vehicle stating it to be new one and even did not provide the complete documents for registration. The complainant and his family have been hurt emotionally, mentally, physically and financially at the hands of O.P. No.1.

                Lastly the complainant prayed to this Forum to give direction to the O.P.s:

(a)    to refund him Rs.5,07,425/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 31.05.2011 till realisation

                                OR

        To replace this vehicle with a brand new one of same make and model having a new insurance policy and also to pay registration charges for the same.

(b)    to pay him  compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for harassment, losses and mental agony suffered by the complainant.

(c)    to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- for emotionally hurting the feelings of the complainant and his family.

(d)    to pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ - for deficiency in service.

(e)    to pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for unfair trade practice.

(f)     to pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for non supplying of necessary documents and for late registration fee which would be paid by the complainant.

(g)    to pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for costs of litigation.

2.             After service of notice, O.P. No.1 appeared before this Forum and Name of O.P. No.2 deleted vide zimni order dated 03.06.2015. OP No.1 filed reply to the complaint taking preliminary objections that complainant failed to  disclose/prove any inherent manufacturing defect; any unfair trade practice; any deficiency in service; non joinder of necessary parties. O.P. No.1 admitted that complainant purchased the car in question from O.P. No.1.

                The complainant after taking delivery of the car on 02.06.2014 drove the car around and came back for first free service on 21.06.2014. After service of the vehicle, which was done free of cost, the service engineer wrongly gave invoice to the complainant, which was on the name of one Darshan Singh. Said Darshan Singh was carrying on the business of Taxi Travels under the name and style of Shiva Travels, who has been impleaded as O.P. No.2 in the present complaint.  Tata Motors offer various schemes every month and to avail that offer, a person has to book a vehicle in the same month. The persons who carry on the business of taxi travels more often use Tata Cars and they obtain loans from the bank to finance their cars. O.P. No.1 who is dealer of Tata Passengers cars take booking from these persons and issue quotations for the finance purposes. Said Darshan Singh booked a Tata Indigo car in his name to avail the offer prevailing for the month of May, 2014 and also got the quotation of the car for finance purposes. The booking of the vehicle is done by way of computer system and once the booking is made, automatically account is created and in case of Darshan Singh also separate account was created and there is no other way to book or generate quotation as all the bookings are done on online system designated by Tata Motors.

                Darshan Singh never approached O.P. No.1 for purchasing the car and on inquiry it was informed by his family members that he has gone abroad for earning livelihood, therefore, booking in his name was cancelled and his account was closed but by mistake could not be deleted in the system.  The service engineer while generating the bill of service, entered the engine and chassis number of the vehicle and took the print out from the old account after entering the mileage and other details of the vehicle of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant regarding sale of old, second hand or repaired vehicle are false, frivolous. The complainant is still using the vehicle which is trouble free and has not given any kind of problem.  O.P. No.1 has sold a brand new vehicle to the complainant which was never sold to anyone else before the complainant. The vehicle sold to the complainant is not a used or repaired vehicle and it is not a resold or second hand vehicle. O.P. No.1 never told the complainant that old vehicle has been sold to him.

                The averment of the complainant that documents of the car have not been given to him is false and erroneous as the State of Punjab through Department of Transport has framed a policy whereby it has been directed that the registration numbers would be issued by the dealers themselves in coordination with the District Transport Officer. As per the policy, the car dealers were not to give original documents to the owners of the vehicle, even for special/fancy numbers. As per the policy, the complainant was required to submit his proof of address, photo, PAN Car or ITR Form 60/61, address proof where vehicle was to be registered etc. alongwith requisite registration fee @ 8% of the cost of vehicle, which in the present case comes to Rs.36,336/- approx. The same has not been deposited by the complainant till date and, therefore, registration certificate could not be issued to the complainant. O.P. No.1 has made many telephonic calls to the complainant but he has not come forward to submit the requisite documents and fee. The complainant has not earlier raised dispute regarding the documents in his complaint filed before the ld. District Consumer Forum, Ropar. The complainant must be driving the vehicle on temporary number which was valid for one month.

                As far as allegation of the complainant regarding date of service coupons is concerned, the same is also false. The vehicle which are sold to the customers are at the first instance purchased by the company/showroom owner from passenger car division of Tata Motors situated at Pune under a bill, which is called company bill and in the case of Tata Cars it is called as ‘Telco Bill’ and then further vehicle sold to the customer. In the present case the Tata Indigo was first purchased by O.P. No.1 from Tata Motors, Pune on 15.03.2014 and on the same day Telco Bill was generated alongwith which service coupons are also generated, therefore, the date of Telco Bill and also the service coupons is same. The validity of the coupons starts only from the date of purchase by customer and in the present case the same has commenced from 31.05.2014

                On merits, O.P. No.1 also denied all the allegations made against it by the complainant and lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.             The complainant placed on record his affidavit Exb.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Exb.C-1 to C-8.

4.             O.P. No.1 placed on record affidavit of Umesh Arora, its General Manager Exb.O.P.-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Exb.O.P.-1 to O.P.-8

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. No.1 and we have also gone through the file.

6.             The complainant is a consumer as he purchased the car from O.P. No.1 for consideration. This District Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction as total amount complainant claims is less than Rs.20.00 lacs and territorial jurisdiction as the O.P.s carries or business within the revenue limits of this Forum as well cause of action arose to the complainant against OP No.1 at Mohali which is within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Forum. This complaint is within limitation as the cause of action arose to the complainant on 21.06.2014 when the complainant was shocked to see the invoice bill dated 21.06.2014 in the name of some other person namely Darshan Singh instead of his name.

7.             The main allegation of the complainant against O.P. No.1 is that he sold him previously booked/used/second car instead of brand new.  Though the complainant could not prove that the car in question was used/second hand car yet he proved vide tax invoice dated 21.06.2014 which is Ex.C-5 that car was previously booked by one Darshan Singh.  This fact was revealed to the complainant on 21.06.2014 when he went to O.P. No.1 for the first free service of the car. O.P. No.1 never disclosed this fact to the complainant. O.P. No.1 is duty bound to disclose this fact to the complainant at the time of sale of the car. If O.P. No.1 has disclosed this fact at the time of sale of the car, then complainant may exercise his choose to purchase this car or not. 

                O.P. No.1 in para No.4 of the preliminary objections of his reply to the complaint admitted that one Darshan Singh who was carrying on the business of Taxi Travels under the name and style of Shiva Travels, booked a Tata Indigo car in his name to avail the offer prevailing for the month of May, 2014 and also got the quotation of the car for finance purposes.  Once the booking is made, automatically account is created and in case of Darshan Singh also separate account was created.  OP No.1 admitted in Para No.4 that after service of vehicle, the service engineer wrongly gave invoice to the complainant which was in the name of one Darshan Singh.  It is observed that infact it is not ‘wrongly’ but ‘rightly’ given by the service engineer to the complainant. The ‘right way’ is not to delete the name of person who booked the vehicle after his cancellation but the ‘right way’ is to disclose this fact to the person who is buying the car after paying the price of it.

                Naturally, sudden revelation of this fact that the car is in the name of some other person namely Darshan Singh would cause suspicion, doubt, harassment and agony to the complainant. Naturally the first thing that will come in the mind of the consumer is that it is a used/second hand car and it would cause harassment and agony to the purchaser. Though the possibility of its being used cannot be ruled out yet it is not proved in any manner by the complainant. The non disclosure of the fact that this car is previously booked by one Darshan Singh to the complainant by O.P. No.1 amounts to unfair trade practice. O.P. No.1 is held guilty of unfair trade practice for not disclosing the fact that this car was previously booked by one Darshan Sigh and then cancelled by him and O.P. No.1 is further held negligent for not redressing the grievance of the complainant for such a long time.

                Further it is observed that OP No.1 has neither registered the vehicle in question with the registering authority nor provided documents to the complainant which are necessary for the registration of the vehicle. Though OP has stated that complainant has not submitted his documents to OP no.1 despite repeated requests yet OP No.1 failed to prove any document on record to this effect.  In an ordinary course prudent/interested person always prefer to complete the work which is in his benefit. In the present complaint getting the vehicle registered is in the benefit of the complainant and in the absence of any documentary proof it cannot be believed that he will not try to get his vehicle registered.  Therefore, OP No.1 is held deficient in service for non registration of the vehicle of the complainant and further held negligent for not redressing his grievance till the filing of this complaint.

                 The complaint is partly allowed. O.P. No.1 namely M/s. Macro Ventures Private Limited, through its Director or its authorised person having office at B-56, Industrial Area, Phase-6, District SAS Nagar, Mohali is directed:

(a)    to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  (Rs. One lac only) on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to negligence of OP No.1.

 (b)   to pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) on account of being negligent for non supplying the necessary documents .

(c)    to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as cost for litigation expenses.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which OP No.1 will be liable to pay an interest @ 12% per annum on the above stated amounts after thirty days from the date of order till its actual realisation. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

August 07, 2015.         

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Presiding Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

                   Member