Date of Institution : 19.11.2010

                                                                                   Date of Decision    : 25.07.2011

                                                                                  ---------------------------------------

 

Shri Pawan Kumar Vaid resident of House No.758, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                        …..Complainant.

Argued By:     Sh. P. C. Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Parmod Jain, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate proxy for

                        Sh. P. K. Kukreja, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

                        Sh. Pawan Kumar Vaid has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed: -

i)                    To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony.

ii)                   To pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as consultation charges of the lawyer.

iii)                 To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                     In brief, the case of the complainant is that he booked a car Wagon-R LX-1 (DUO) S-Sliver with OP No.2 on 23.08.2010. He paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as booking amount. Receipt to this effect was issued by the OP No.2. Complainant was told that the delivery of the car would be given after three days. So, on 25.8.2010, complainant went to Sh. Ritesh, who is the Team Leader, in the office of OP No.2 to know the status. He was told that an amount of Rs.50,000/- more is required for placing the order with Maruti Udyog Limited. So, on 26.8.2010, the complainant again visited the office of OP No.2 and paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- vide demand draft No.663090 dated 24.08.2010 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, Chandigarh. On 26.8.2010 also, complainant was told that the delivery of the car will be made within three days. So, on 30.8.2010, complainant enquired from Sh. Ritesh about the status of the car but OP No.2 started delaying tactics for delivering the vehicle in question. According to the complainant, on 7.9.2010, he received a call from Sh. Sandeep Walia informing him that the car was available for delivery. So, on 8.9.2010, the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 to take delivery of the vehicle. On that day, he was told to visit the office on 9.9.2010. So, on 9.9.2010, the complainant again visited the office of OP No.2. He reached the office at about 3:15 P.M. Despite the fact that the complainant was told that the car is ready for delivery, the actual delivery was given to him at about 7:45 P.M. on 9.9.2010. Thus, according to the complainant, he had to wait for a long time for taking delivery of the car and this caused him immense physical harassment and mental agony.

                        It has further been pleaded that OP No.2 issued an Invoice of Rs.3,47,137/- regarding the sale of the car and also issued a Sales Certificate. The car of the complainant was also insured at the premises of OP No.2 and the entire information regarding the car was given by OP No.2. In all the above documents i.e. Invoice, Sale Certificate and Insurance Cover, it has been mentioned that the car is hypothecated to the State Bank of Patiala. According to the complainant, as a result, the complainant could not get the vehicle registered within time. When he visited the office of Registrar for registration of the car, he was told to bring certificate and documents from the Bank regarding hypothecation of car.  As the car was not hypothecated, he had to visit various offices unnecessarily. Resultantly, he consulted a lawyer and paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to him as fee who advised him to approach CCM of the Regional Office of OP company. So, the complainant approached the CCM on 15.9.2010 and at his intervention, fresh invoice was issued wherein it was mentioned that the complete payment has been made in  cash.  Similarly,  mistakes in  Sale  Certificate and Insurance Cover were also rectified.

                        Thus, according to the complainant, he had to suffer physical harassment and mental agony on account of wrong entry made in the invoice, sale certificate and the insurance cover, which amount to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.               

                        In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                     In the reply filed by OP No.1 (the manufacturer), it is pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer qua it as no contract was entered into between it and the complainant. It has been pleaded that the relationship between OP No.1 and OP No.2 is that of Principal-to-Principal basis only as per the Dealership Agreement executed between them. It is next pleaded that the obligation of OP No.1 is only to render warranty services, which is not the subject matter in dispute. As per OP No.1, the present complaint has been filed as an afterthought to make undue gains. It is asserted that there is no act of omission or commission on the part of OP No.1 as no allegation has been made against it in the entire complaint. According to OP No.1, what transpired between the complainant and OP No.2 (dealer) is not in its knowledge.

                        In these circumstances, the case of OP No.1 is that there is no deficiency on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                     In the reply filed by OP No.2 (the dealer), the sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant by it has been admitted. Further, the receipt of Rs.3,60,000/- being the price of the vehicle in question has also been admitted by OP No.2. However, the demand of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant has been specifically denied. It has been pleaded that the complainant was intimated on 03.09.2010 about the receipt of the vehicle but he was not interested to receive the delivery of the vehicle prior to 09.09.2010. According to OP No.2, after getting the intimation of receipt of vehicle, the complainant collected back the amount of Rs.10,573/- vide cheque dated 4.9.2010. He inspected the vehicle on 6.9.2010. As per this OP, the complainant preferred to take delivery of the vehicle on the first Navratra i.e. on 9.9.2010. OP No.2 has admitted the mistake of mentioning the vehicle under hypothecation in the Sales Letter/Invoice. It has been asserted that the same was deleted and fresh document was issued to the complainant on 15.09.2010.

                        In these circumstances, the case of OP No.2 is that there is no deficiency on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                     Admittedly, the complainant had paid the entire sale consideration at the time of purchasing the car. Despite it, on the invoice, it was admittedly mentioned by OP No.2 that the car is hypothecated to State Bank of Patiala. This fact is also mentioned in the sale certificate. It has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for the complainant that the entry regarding hypothecation in the invoice and the sale certificate by OP No.2 resulted in physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant as he had to move from one office to another office to get the car registered and for removal of the wrong entry in the invoice and the sale certificate regarding hypothecation of the car.

7.                     On the other hand, it has been argued vehemently by the learned counsel for OP No.2 that the mistake was rectified on 15.09.2010 and no loss or harassment has been caused to the complainant.

8.                     To our mind, the wrong entry in the invoice and the sale certificate regarding hypothecation of the vehicle by OP No.2 did cause harassment and mental agony to the complainant as he had to move from one office to another office in order to get the said entry rectified and to get the car registered accordingly. So making such an entry regarding hypothecation of the car in the documents mentioned above amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.

9.                     In these circumstances, the complaint is allowed only qua OP No.2 with following directions to it:-

i)          to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

ii)         to pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.                   This order be complied with by OP No.2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP No.2 shall be liable to pay Rs.30,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.19.11.2010 till the date of actual payment besides the payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.                   It is pertinent to mention here that OP No.1 has been impleaded by the complainant being the manufacturer of the vehicle in question. Neither any sale consideration was paid to OP No.1 nor has any service been rendered by it to the complainant. Not even a single allegation has been made against OP No.1 in the complaint. Therefore, no case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against OP No.1 by the complainant. According, the complaint qua OP No.1 is dismissed.

12.                   Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Argued By: None.

 

                                                                        ---

 

                        The case was reserved on 22.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed qua OP No.2 only. However, the complaint has been dismissed qua OP No.1. After compliance file be consigned.

 

Announced.