District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 07/2022.
Date of Institution:04.01.2022.
Date of Order: 07.02.2023.
Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Sant Lal, House No. 170, Gali No. 12/1, Meethpur Extn. Badarpur, South Delhi. At present House No.2, Shyam Coloy, Sehatpur Extn. Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Skyline Automobiles, IE/4, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi through its Proprietor/principal Officer.
2 M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Automotive Sector, Mahindra Tower, 3rd floor, Ankurli road, Khandewali East, Mumbai – 400101 through its Managing Director/Director.
3. Mumtaj S/o Mukhtyar, RZ-2063, Gali No. 27, Tughalakabad Extn. Kalkaji, South Delhi.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Anuj Dubey, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. P.L.Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 23.02.2022.
Opposite party No.3 given up on 1.6.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant purchased E-Rickshaw i.e Mahindra E-Alfa Mini Make Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd . vide invoice No. VEH/010/21-22 dated 12.4.2021, chasis No. 76140 for total amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- from opposite party No.1 for his lively hood and the complainant had no any other income sources except the said E-rickshaw and the said vehicle was registered vide registration No. DL6ER3568. The complainant visited the authorized Mahindra Service centre for service of his E-Rickshaw, the service center clarify that the free services had already been availed by one Mumtaj S/o Mukhtyar who was registered owner of said E-Rickshaw as per record and if he wanted to service the E-Rickshaw a then he had to pay for the service. Mumtaj s/o Mukhtyar was opposite party No.3 and the said service center refused to service the said vehicle as per the new vehicle terms and conditions, it seems that the opposite party No.1 with collusion of opposite party No.2, cheated the complainant and delivered the old vehicle in place of new vehicle, without any warranty. The complainant asked several times and visited several times and also sent e-mails to the opposite parties to change the said old vehicle or refund the amount which he had grabed the money on account of new vehicle with malafide intension from complainant and hand over the old vehicle in place of new vehicle to the complainant. Opposite parties till date neither replaced the said vehicle nor refund the amount of said vehicle and linger on the matter always on one pretext or the other. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) change the old E-Rickshaw and delivered the new E-Rickshaw to the complainant with immediate effect or refund the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its due till realization of whole amount to the complainant immediately..
b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file the present complaint. The answering opposite party was not the manufacturer but he provided all types of services and sales & purchase of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited to the customer and there was no negligence on the part of the answering opposite party because the answering opposite party do their work peacefully and honestly. The said E-Rickshaw was a commercial vehicle specially designed for carrying the passenger and the complainant was using the said vehicle for commercial purpose by carry the goods from one place to others on chargeable basis and hence the complainant did not fall under the definition of the consumer as per Consumer Protection act which was also admitted by the complainant in this complaint. It was submitted that if any customer wanted to purchase the said vehicle then without police verification of the customers the answering opposite party cannot sale any vehicle to the customers without badge learning & police verification. Only one time verification was verified by the police and customer can purchased only one vehicle after verification and one same time after police verification of the complainant, the complainant purchased the newly vehicle bearing No. DL6ER3568 which was registered in the name of the complainant as per the invoice No. VEH/010/21-22 dated 12.04.2021 of Rs.1,30,000/- and the same the vehicle was also fully insured vide insurance policy NO. MAH81293. The above said vehicle was used for commercial purpose. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back with the report of “Refusal”. Hence, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.02.2022.
4. Shri Anuj Dubey, counsel for the complainant has made a statement that he gives up opposite party No.3 being unnecessary.. hence, opposite party No.3 was given up from the array of opposite parties.
5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
7. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Skyline Automobiles & Others with the prayer to: a) change the old E-Rickshaw and delivered the new E-Rickshaw to the complainant with immediate effect or refund the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its due till realization of whole amount to the complainant immediately.. b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 22,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Vinod Kumar, Ex.C-1 – Tax Invoice, Ex.C-2 – RC,, Ex.C-3 - RO Bill – Tax Invoice, Ex.C-3 - RO Bill – Tax Invoice,, Ex.C-5 - RO Pro- Invoice,, Ex.C-6 – letter dated 07.10.2021 written by the complainant to Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Ex.C-8 - letter dated 07.10.2021 written by the complainant to Skyline, Ex.C-9 – letter dated 07.10.2021, Ex.C-10 to 12 – postal receipts, Ex.C-13 (colly) – email.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No. 1strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex. RW1/A – affidavit of Satendra Kumar Goyal, Manager legal Department of M/s. Skyline Automobiles, 1E/4, Jhandewalan Extention, New Delhi, Ex.RW1/1 - authorization letter, Ex.RW1/2 – tax invoice, Ex.RW1/3 – insurance policy.
8. In this complaint, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to change the old E-Rickshaw and delivered the new E-Rickshaw to the complainant with immediate effect or refund the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its due till realization of whole amount to the complainant immediately.
9. The main allegation of the complainant is that the E-Rickshaw sold by opposite party No.1 to opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 was the old one and not the new one. After going through the evidence led by the complainant from Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13(colly), the complainant has failed to establish his case because the counsel for the opposite party produced the relevant document i.e. registration certificate. As per registration certificate vide Ex.C2, Shri Vinod Kumar is the registered owner son of Shri Sant Lal and in the ownership column in Ex.C2 the ownership S.No.. is 01. During the course of arguments, counsel for the opposite party No.1 has submitted the documents i.e vehicle history vide Annexure A& B. As per the vehicle history vide Annx.A, Shri Vinod Kumar is the registered owner and mileage of the E-Rickshaw is 21200 on 09th August 2022 and as per vehicle history vide Annx.A the E-Rickshaw was repaired from Sanjay Automobile on 28.07.2022 and the kilometer of the E-Rickshaw was 15227. As per vehicle history vide Annx.B bill dated 07.09.2021 kilometer was only 2273 and the repair order dated 17.04.2021 the kilometer was 179. As per RO Bill – Tax invoice vide Ex.C3 the chassis No. of the vehicle in question is K5L76140 which was in the name of Mumtaj S/o Shri Mukhtyar but as per the registration certificate vide Ex.C2 chassis No. of the vehicle in question is MAILP2DC3K5L76140. As per RO Bill – Tax Invoice vide Ex.C3 the date of sale is also mentioned as 11.03.2020. Ex.C2 Registration number of the vehicle and Ex.C3 Tax Invoice of Mumtaj are two different vehicles and does not match with the vehicle in question.
10. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 07.02.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
( Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
