Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/279/2023

Sh. Subhash Chander Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NEXA AUTOPACE NETWORK - Opp.Party(s)

Raghav Sharma Adv.

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	279 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	11.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	30.04.2024

1. Sh. Subhash Chander Sharma s/o late Sh. M.G. Sharma r/o 1180 New Light Housing Society, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh-160047.
2. Ms. Madhu Sharma w/o Sh. S.C. Sharma r/o Flat No.1180, New Light Housing Society, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh-160047..

……Appellants/Complainants

V e r s u s

1. M/s Nexa Autopace Network, Elante Mall, Ground Floor, Office Block Plot No.178/178A, MW Area, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh 160002. Through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.
2. M/s Maruti Suzuki True Value Autopace Network, Plot No.112-113, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh 160002, through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

…..Respondents/opposite parties no.1 and 2

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                   MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                            

Present:-

Ms.Madhu Sharma, appellant no.2 in person and also on behalf of appellant no.1 Sh.P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for the respondents.

 

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

 

M.A. No.801 of 2023 (Condonation of delay):-           

                   Alongwith this appeal, this application has been filed by the applicants/appellants/complainants for condonation of delay of 09 days (as per office 03 days) in filing the same. Arguments of the contesting parties, on this application heard.

2.                For the reasons stated in this application, we are of the considered view that the applicants/appellants have been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the stipulated period. In this view of the matter, this application stands allowed and the delay of 09 days (as per office 03 days) days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, this application stands dispose off. 

 

Appeal No.279 of 2023:-

3.           The complainants have assailed the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which the consumer complaint bearing no.574 of 2022 filed by them was dismissed by it, while holding as under:-

“……Thus, one thing is further clear on record that, in fact, the complainants have no cause of action to file the present consumer complaint on 2.6.2022 i.e. even prior to the transfer of the registration certificate of their old car in the name of Barinder Singh, which was only transferred in his name in the month of July 2022.  Moreover, when complainant No.2 had accepted cheque (Annexure OP-1/4) for the sum of ₹5,000/- on 11.11.2022 when it was tendered by the contesting OPs before this Commission, it is clear that the aforesaid security amount has already been refunded to the complainants after the transfer of RC in the name of the buyer and the complainants have no cause of action against OPs 1 & 2.  Hence, it is unsafe to hold that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of contesting OPs and the present consumer complaint deserves dismissal..…..”    

 

4.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainants that on 8.2.2020, they purchased a Maruti Suzuki Ciaz car having registration No.CH01-CA-0435 from opposite party no.1 in the name of complainant No.2 as per registration certificate (Annexure C-1). Complainant No.1, who was registered owner of one Hyundai i10 car bearing registration No.CH01-AA-7211 had given the said car in exchange to opposite party no.1 at the time of purchase of new car.  At the time of delivery of the new car and handing over of the old car to opposite party no.1 by the complainants, opposite party no.1 had withheld an amount of Rs.5,000/- as security amount from the complainants for facilitating the transfer of their old car at the Registration and Licensing Authority (RLA), Chandigarh which was to be credited upon sale of their old car.  Later on, the complainants contacted opposite party no.1 to know about the status of the old car if the same has been sold or not, but, no adequate response was received. After contacting the opposite parties several times, the complainants were informed by an employee of opposite party no.1 in the month of November 2020 that their old car had already been sold to some person through opposite party no.2 and the possession of the same has already been delivered to the said person.  On knowing this fact, both the complainants were shocked as they were not informed by the opposite parties about the sale of the old car to some third person and also that the aforesaid security amount of Rs.5,000/- has not been refunded to the complainants. Complainant No.1 is handicapped and had authorised his son Raghav Sharma to complete the necessary process of transfer at the RLA on his behalf.  Complainant No.1, being handicapped person, has been exempted from paying road tax. Thereafter the opposite parties started asking the complainant to first pay the road tax only then the RC of the old car can be transferred to some third person despite knowing the fact that complainant No.1 was exempted from paying the tax.  As the opposite parties have failed to refund the aforesaid security amount to the complainants despite of the fact that their old car has already been sold by them to a third person, the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.
5.                The consumer complaint was contested by opposite parties no.1 and 2 and they filed written statement stating therein that an amount of Rs.5,000/- was retained as security from the complainants with the condition that the same shall be released to them as and when the new registration certificate is issued in the name of the buyer of the old car.  Vide receipt dated 23.6.2022, the old car was transferred in the name of one Barinder Singh after payment of the remaining road tax amount of Rs.5,700/- by him which was otherwise payable by the previous owner/complainant No.1. In fact, after the transfer of the RC, the security amount was offered to the complainant in the form of cheque No.5891 dated 19.9.2022 before the District Commission, but, the complainants refused to accept the same. 
6.                Names of opposite parties no.3 and 4 were deleted by the District Commission vide order dated 20.01.2023.
7.                The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
8.                The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record dismissed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants.  
9.                We have heard the contesting parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record and also the written arguments filed by the parties concerned.
10.           It is significant to mention here that since the disputed security amount of Rs.5000/- which had been retained by respondents no.1 and 2 had already been refunded to the appellants, yet, during pendency of the consumer complaint before the District Commission, as such, the only  moot question which falls for consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled to get any further relief in this appeal or not. It may be stated here that perusal of record reveals that though respondents no.1 and 2 have retained the said security amount of Rs.5000/- on 09.02.2020, Annexure OP-1/1 from the complainant by way of affidavit, which was refundable till the time, the new registration of  certificate in respect of  their old car is issued in the name of the buyer of the said old vehicle, yet, there is nothing on record that the respondents took any steps to re-sell the said old car of the appellants and get the  registration done, for more than two years. Admittedly, the old car of the appellants was sold of one Barinder Singh on 23.06.2022, as he had deposited road tax to the tune of Rs.5700/- vide receipt, Annexure OP-1/2 and fee of Rs.620/-  for transfer of ownership was  also deposited by him with the RLA, Chandigarh on 29.07.2022 and the new RC, Annexure OP-1/3 was issued in his name.  In this way,  respondents no.1 and 2 have utilized the security amount of Rs.5000/- paid by the  appellants for more than two and a half years and took steps to sell the old car only when the appellants filed consumer complaint before the District Commission on 02.06.2022. The said security amount of Rs.5000/- was refunded to the  appellants by respondents no.1 and 2 only during pendency of the consumer complaint, meaning thereby that the appellants have been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. One can well imagine the plight of the appellants who have been forced to go into two rounds of litigation to recover their security amount of Rs.5000/- from respondents no.1 and 2. Under these circumstances, it can very well be said that  respondents no.1 and 2 were  negligent and also adopted unfair trade practice by utilizing the security amount of Rs.5000/- for more than 2 years, for which they are liable to compensate the appellants suitably.
11.           Because the fact of the matter is that security amount of Rs.5000/-  remained deposited with respondents no.1 and 2 for quite long time and as such, in our  considered view, the appellants are entitled to some interest on the said amount, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors., II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) wherein it was held as under:-

“9.  It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest.  Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital.  For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount.  Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period.  Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.”

12.           However, the District Commission fell into a grave error in dismissing the consumer complaint by holding to the contrary.
13.           Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting interference of this Commission.
14.           Resultantly, this appeal stands allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The consumer complaint stands partly allowed and respondents no.1 and 2/opposite parties no.1 and 2 are directed as under:-

1. To pay interest @9% p.a. on the security amount of Rs.5000/- to the appellants from 09.05.2020 i.e. after three months of receipt of the said amount till 11.11.2022 (date of refund) onwards.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the appellants and also  negligence and deficiency in providing service.
3. To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the appellants.
4. This order be complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof, failing which, thereafter, the awarded amounts shall carry interest @11% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.

 

15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
16.           The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and record of the District Commission concerned be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

30.04.2024

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Rg