Haryana

Ambala

CC/36/2014

ASHOK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S METRO MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

S.K SHARMA

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                                                                     Complaint Case No. : 36 of 2014

                                                                                                     Date of Institution    : 27.01.2014

                                         Date of Decision      :  23-06-2017

 

Ashok Kumar son of Shri Sohan Lal, resident of Sanjay Colony Cheeka, Tehsil ghula, Distt. Kaithal, Haryana.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Metro Motors, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Managing Director/Authorized signatory.  
2. Tata Motors, Passenger Car Businiess Unit, KD 03, Car Plant, Sector-15 & 15 APONTDA Chikhali, Pune -410501, through its Managing Director.

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. S.K Sharma, counsel. for complainant.

                        Sh. Keshav Sharma, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had booked a car TATA Model Indigo (Diesel) with the OP No. 1, who is the authorized dealer of OP No. 2. The delivery of the car was given to the complainant by OP No. 1 after receipt of full and final payment of car price i.e. Rs. 5,20,670/- vide invoice No. PCD/35966 dated 18-02-2013 and the sale certificate of the car was also issued by the OP No. 1 to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant being ruralist back ground person could not go through the papers properly, issued to him by the OP No. 1 and accordingly the complainant applied for registration of the said car before the concerned Registering Authority and deposited the required fee of registration and the authority, who issued the Registration Certificate of the said car. It is further submitted that the complainant was surprised to know that in the registration certificate, model of the Car was mentioned as year 2012, though the complainant has taken the delivery of the car in question on 18-02-2013 and had paid the price of car Model 2013 to the OP No. 1 and after coming to know about all this fraud played on the complainant by OP No. 1, he visited their office at Ambala Cantt. and apprised them about their illegal act and fraud, the OP No. 1 assured the complainant that the matter in dispute has been referred to OP No. 2 and further assured the complainant that either his car will be replaced with the new one of Model 2013 or he will be compensated by cash to some extent, but only on receipt of communication from the OP No. 2. It is further submitted that after waiting sufficient time, the complainant served the OPs with legal notice dated 04-09-2013 but in vain.  As such, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant has prayed that the OPs may kindly be directed to replace the vehicle in question by model vehicle of 2013/2014 and to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment to the complainant.  

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed their written statement raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint, no deficiency in service on their part. On merits, it has been submitted that due to some typographical error, the model was mentioned as 2012 instead of 2013 and accordingly a fresh sale certificate was issued mentioning the model as 2013 for necessary correction in the R.C. Book and a detailed reply dated 10-09-2013 was also communicated, hence, there is no fault, imperfection, shortcoming etc., but the complainant has not mentioned about it. As such, there is no question of any other grievance as alleged by the complainant, hence, OPs have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove their version, counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as C1 to C10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs has tendered affidavit of Harpal Singh as Annexure RX along with documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R2 and closed the evidence. 

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. It is not disputed that that the delivery of the car was delivered to the complainant on 18-02-2013 and the sale certificate of the car was also issued to the complainant. Thereafter he got issued the Registration Certificate of the said car and as per the version of the complainant that he was surprised to know that in the registration certificate, model of the Car was mentioned as year 2012, though he has taken the delivery of the car in question on 18-02-2013 and had paid the price of car Model 2013. On which he visited the office of OPs at Ambala Cantt. and apprised them about their illegal act and fraud, upon which they assured the complainant that either his car will be replaced with the new one of Model 2013 or he will be compensated by cash to some extent, but nothing has been done by the OPs.  

 5.                    To rebut these contentions, counsel for OPs has argued that due to some typographical error, the model was mentioned as 2012 instead of 2013 and accordingly a fresh sale certificate was issued mentioning the model as 2013 for necessary correction in the R.C. Book and a detailed reply dated 10-09-2013 was also communicated. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

6.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record carefully, it is proved on the file that at the time of purchase of the vehicle, sale certificate issued by the OPs to the complainant, mentioning therein the model as 2012 as per annexure C3. On the basis of the document annexure C3, complainant got issued the Registration Certificate of his car as annexure C5, wherever also model of the car is mentioned as 2012. It is admitted by the counsel for the OPs that due to some typographical error, the model was mentioned as 2012 instead of 2013 in sale certificate. The fresh sale certificate was issued in this regard after rectification of model as annexure R2 but the said sale certificate bears no specific date and year, whereas, the complainant had to get his vehicle registered with the Registration Authority within a stipulated period of 30 days. Accordingly he got issued the same within the time. In this way, the opposite parties have cleverly deceived the complainant by issuing the fresh sale certificate without mentioning the date and year and the said certificate was also issued after serving the notice to the opposite parties as such they did not come forward at their own or did not give any offer to rectify the model upon the Registration Certificate till date. As such the complainant suffered the loss caused due to the old model.  

                        Since, the complainant has used the vehicle in question from the date of purchase i.e. 18-02-2013, so it is not justified to replace the said vehicle with new one. We have gone through the order passed by Hon’ble National Commission in revision Petition No. 836/11, 2012(1) CPR 278 (NC) titled as M/s Dada Motors Ltd. vs. Suresh Kumar, decided on 10-01-2012, which is squarely covered the case of the complainant and whereby the Hon’ble National Commission has upheld the order of the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab passed in appeal No. 678/05 in which Hon’ble  State Commission, Punjab has awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in toto and further held that it will be sufficient and adequate to meet the end of justice”. The aforesaid case law is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7.                     In view of the above said discussion, we are of the considered view that the OPs are deficient in service as well as committed unfair trade practice. As such, the complainant is entitled the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss caused due to the old model. Hence, we partly allow the present complaint with costs, which is assessed to Rs. 5,000/- and the OPs are directed to comply the following directions within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

1. To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. Failing which, they will be liable to pay interest @ 12 % on the aforesaid amount for the period of default.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs on account of litigation expenses. 

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

                                                                                                         Sd/-

Announced on: 23.06.2017                                                    (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                    MEMBER

 

                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                MEMBER