BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  : 428 of 2008

Date of Institution :  21.04.2008

Date of  Decision   :  05.04.2010

Surinder Singh Siao, Advocate s/o Sh. Sucha Singh, resident of House No. 3178, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh.

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]   M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., (Authorized Dealer – Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.), through its Executive Director (Mr. Pardeep Mittal), Office at Plot No. 26-B, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh – 160002.

2]   M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., SCO No. 17, 1^st Floor, Sector 26-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160019, through its Manager/ Area Manager.

3]   M/s Mahindra Renault Pvt. Ltd., Factory: Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Nashik Plant, 89, MIDC, Satpur, Nashik – 422007 (Maharashtra), through its Prop./ Manager.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

          SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI       MEMBER

          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

PRESENT: Sh.J.S.Dhaliwal, Adv. for Complainant.

         Sh.Krishan Singla, Adv. for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, the Complainant purchased one LOGAN GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) Car (new Model) from OP No. 1 - an authorized dealer of OPs No. 2 & 3, who allotted a Temporary Regn. No. CH 23(T) 7648 to the said Car. The delivery of the car was given to the Complainant on 6.2.2008, along with relevant documents, as find mention in Sr. No. (i) to (vi) in Para No. 1 of the complaint. The Car was also got insured from New India Assurance Company Ltd. through the Agent present at the premises of the OP No. 1. It was alleged that on 28.2.2008, when the Complainant went to the Registering Authority, U.T. Chandigarh to get a permanent Registration No., as he was required to get the registration of the Car within one month i.e. upto 5.3.2008, the Form No. 22, issued by OP No. 1 to the Complainant, was returned by the Registering Authority with the objection that it had not been countersigned by OP No. 2, along with a covering letter issued by OP No. 2 or 3. Subsequently, the Complainant got the necessary formalities completed on his own and submitted the papers to the Registering Authority against Token No. 37, dated 29.2.2008. It was further alleged that his Car was not registered by the Registering Authority at Chandigarh and instead, he got a message on his mobile phone from the Registering Authority, stating that he has not attached a confirmation letter issued by the Secretary Home, Chandigarh with regard to the confirmation & approval of new model of Logan GLX 1.6 car. His contention was that OP No.1 was required to obtain the permission letter from the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh before placing the latest new model of Logan GLX 1.6 Car on sale, which it failed to do and rather, sold the Car to the Complainant, without getting any such certificate, which according to him is an unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1. The Complainant asked OP No 1 to provide the requisite confirmation to him from Secretary Home, U.T. Chandigarh by 9.3.2008, so that he could register his vehicle by 10.3.2008 i.e. the date given by the Registering Authority for the purpose. But the same was not done and he was compelled to get the date extended upto 28.3.2008. Subsequently, he went to OP No. 1 umpteen number of times, but there was no positive headway. Finally, the Registering & Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, returned the original file along with the forwarding letter to the Complainant on 17.4.2008, saying that the Logan GLX 1.6 Petrol Car cannot be registered, as the manufacturer has not obtained the approval of Secretary Transport, U.T. Chandigarh. The Complainant being a practicing Advocate, had to visit a number of places and in the absence of proper registration of the Car, he could not use the same and as a result of which, he had to hire a Taxi @ Rs.500/- per day and, therefore, he has incurred a huge expenditure on account of transport, which discharging his professional duty, owing to the negligent services rendered by the OPs. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs, along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of purchase of the car i.e. 6.2.2008:-

a)  Rs.1,50,000/- for causing financial loss;  

b)  Rs.1,50,000/- for causing professional loss;

c)  Rs.1,40,000/- for causing conveyance harassment to the Complainant making him to visit several times to the office of Registering Authority and visit their own office unnecessarily;

d)  Rs.50,000/- for causing physical harassment and mental agony.

e)  Rs.10,000/- for keeping the new car parked for a period of more than one month.

f)  Direct the OPs to supply the requisite confirmation letter issued by the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh in respect of the aforesaid Model of the car i.e. GLX 1.6 at the earliest to avoid further loss to the Complainant.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OP No.1 in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that it was only a Dealer and not the manufacture of the Car, therefore, it had no role to play in the manufacturing, certification and approval for registration of a vehicle. It was asserted that the certification of compliance with the relevant rules is done by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune, on which basis the administration of each State and U.T. grants approval for the registration of a particular vehicle in their respective areas. In the present case, the certification of the concerned vehicle was done by ARAI vide certificate dated 7.2.2007, based upon which the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration granted approval for registration of the vehicle, vide endorsement to manufacturer letter No. 6098, dated 29.3.2007, which was reiterated vide letter No. 3188, dated 14.2.2008. However, on both occasions, an inadvertent mistake occurred in wrongly mentioning the correct nomenclature of the vehicle i.e. the word “GSL” was mentioned instead of “GLX”. Upon detecting the bonafide error, the approval was again applied for the correct nomenclature i.e. GLX and the same was granted vide letter No. 10875-77, dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure R-4). In its reply, on merits, it had denied all the allegations made by the Complainant, especially in respect of the requirement of counter signing the Form No. 22 and issuance of the covering letter, saying that it had fulfilled all the requirements for proper registration of the vehicle. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      OPs No. 2 and 3, in their joint reply/ written statement has almost repeated the same averments, as has been made by OP No. 1, saying that the said vehicle was sold under the bonafide belief that proper approval for its registration is existing. They have admitted that the inadvertent error in the nomenclature i.e. the mentioning of the word “GSL” instead of “GLX” had escaped their notice earlier and the same was got corrected, immediately, by them when the same came to their knowledge. They further say that this kind of problem arose only in the Chandigarh area and nowhere else in the country for the said model. The reply of the OPs No. 2 and 3 on merits was also exactly the same, as in the case of OP  No. 1. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted therein. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for the Complainant and OPs. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having purchased a Mahindra and Mahindra LOGAN GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) Car (new Model) from OP No. 1, who is an authorized dealer of OPs No. 2 & 3 and that a Temporary Regn. No. CH 23(T) 7648 was given to the said Car, the car was delivered to the Complainant on 6.2.2008, along with relevant documents, as mentioned from (i) to (vi) in the complaint, have all been admitted. Further, the Car was also insured from New India Assurance Company Ltd. through the Agent present at the premises of the OP No. 1. As per the Complainant, the trouble arose on 28.2.2008, when he went to the Registering Authority to get a permanent Registration No., as he was required to get the registration of the Car within one month i.e. upto 5.3.2008. The Form No. 22 issued by OP No. 1 to the Complainant was returned by the Registering Authority with the objection that it had not been countersigned by OP No. 2, along with a covering letter issued by OP No. 2 or 3. Subsequently, the Complainant got the necessary formalities completed on his own and submitted the papers to the Registering Authority against Token No. 37, dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure C-11). As per the Complainant, his Car was not registered by the Registering Authority at Chandigarh and instead, he got a message on his mobile phone from the Registering Authority, stating that he has not attached a confirmation letter issued by the Secretary Home, Chandigarh with regard to the confirmation of new model of Logan GLX 1.6 car. The grievance of the Complainant against the OPs is that OP No. 1 was required to obtain the permission letter from the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh prior to placing the latest new model of Logan GLX 1.6 Car on sale. But, in the present case, OP No. 1 sold the Car to the Complainant, without getting any such certificate, which according to the Complainant is an unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1. The Complainant asked OP No 1 to provide the requisite confirmation to him from Secretary Home, U.T. Chandigarh by 9.3.2008, so that he could get the registration of the vehicle done by 10.3.2008. But the same was not done and the Complainant was compelled to get the date extended upto 28.3.2008. Subsequently, the Complainant again went to OP No. 1 a number of times, but the needful was not done by this OP. In the meantime, the Complainant was getting the time extended from time to time from the Registering Authority, U.T. Chandigarh. But finally, the Registering & Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, returned the original file to the Complainant on 17.4.2008, saying that the Logan GLX 1.6 Petrol Car cannot be registered, as the manufacturer has not obtained the approval of Secretary Transport, U.T. Chandigarh. As per the Complainant, since he is a practicing Advocate, he had to visit a number of places and in the absence of proper registration of the Car, he could not use the same and as a result of which, he had to hire a Taxi @ Rs.500/- per day and, therefore, he has incurred a huge expenditure on account of transport, just because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Complainant. 

ii] OP No. 1, in its written statement/ reply has raised a number of preliminary objections in respect of jurisdiction and further saying that it only a Dealer and not the manufacture of the Car, therefore, he has no role to play in the manufacturing, certification and approval for registration of a vehicle. It further says that the certification of compliance with the relevant rules is done by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune, on which basis the administration of each State and U.T. grants approval for the registration of a particular vehicle in their respective areas. In the present case, the certification of the concerned vehicle was done by ARAI vide certificate dated 7.2.2007, based upon which the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration granted approval for registration of the vehicle, vide endorsement to manufacturer letter No. 6098, dated 29.3.2007, which was reiterated vide letter No. 3188, dated 14.2.2008. However, on both occasions, an inadvertent mistake occurred in wrongly mentioning the correct nomenclature of the vehicle i.e. the word “GSL” was mentioned instead of “GLX”. Upon detecting the bonafide error, the approval was again applied for the correct nomenclature i.e. GLX and the same was granted vide letter No. 10875-77, dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure R-4). In its reply on merits, it has denied all the allegations made by the Complainant, especially in respect of the requirement of counter signing the Form No. 22 and with regard to the issuance of the covering letter, saying that it had fulfilled all the requirements for proper registration of the vehicle. It has further reiterated its averments made in the preliminary objections in reply on merits also.  

iii] OPs No. 2 and 3, in their reply/ written statement has almost repeated the same points, as has been done by OP No. 1, saying that the said vehicle was sold under bonafide belief that proper approval for its registration is existing. They have admitted that the inadvertent error in the nomenclature i.e. the mentioning of “GSL” instead of “GLX” had escaped their notice earlier and the same was got corrected, immediately, by them as soon as it came to their knowledge. They further say that this kind of problem arose only in the Chandigarh area and nowhere else in the country. The reply of the OPs No. 2 and 3 on merits is also exactly the same, as in the case of OP  No. 1.

iv]  During the course of arguments, the statement of Shri Sanjay Sharma, Dealing Clerk O/o Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, was recorded on 12.11.2009. But, the Dealing person could not explain the precise reasons for not issuing the Registration Certificate in the present case, as he did not carry with him the records concerning the issuance of the Registration Certificate to the Complainant. The original records pertaining to the registration of the vehicle in question were later produced on 28.11.2009 and the same were shown to the Complainant. The cross-examination of Sh.Sanjay Sharma was also done on that day. Sh. Sanjay Sharma, in his statement on oath, has confirmed that an objection was put on the file presented by the Complainant for registration of his Car on 28.2.2008 to the effect that Form No. 22 did not bear the signature of the Manufacturer, although, it was only a verbal objection. He has further stated that the Registration Certificate could not be issued to the Complainant, as there was no approval for the particular model of the vehicle from the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration and this approval was finally, received on 29.5.2008.  As per Mr. Sanjay Sharma, when an application is made for registration of a vehicle, a slip is issued to the Applicant, regarding receipt of the application and that slip authorizes the person to drive the car on the road, but he could not produce any relevant rule in confirmation of the permission to drive the Car in the absence of a proper registration certificate. He also could not produce any written record that the original file was returned to the Complainant on his request. He also confirmed that the date for the temporary number given for the vehicle is never extended, but added that it was a matter of common practice that the Applicant could drive the car, pending registration of the vehicle, although no specific rule was cited in support of this contention. 

7]      The detailed analysis of the entire case reveals that there is only one point at controversy between the Parties i.e. whether the OPs had rightfully brought the Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) Car in the Market for sale without first getting its approval from the relevant authorities i.e. a proper certification of compliance under the relevant Rules by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune and also from the concerned Transport Authority of the State or Union Territory, as the case may be. Whereas, the contention of the OPs, especially OPs No. 2 & 3 has been that the said vehicle was sold under the bonafide belief that proper approval for its registration was existing, at the same time, they have themselves admitted that the inadvertent error in the nomenclature i.e. mentioning of “GSL” instead of “GLX” had escaped their notice and it was only subsequently when the trouble arose, as the Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh had refused to register the car of the Complainant, because of this discrepancy that the OPs took steps to get the same approved from the Transport Authorities, as a result of which the registration of the vehicle was made possible on a much later date. Contrary to this, the stand of the Complainant is that the OPs had no right to bring the vehicle of a particular model in the market for sale, without first getting its proper certification from ARAI, Pune and due confirmation and approval from Secretary Home, U.T. Chandigarh, which has clearly not been done by the OPs before selling the Car to the Complainant. All this has also been candidly admitted by Shri Sanjay Sharma, the Dealing Official of the Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh in his statements made on 12.11.2009 and 28.11.2009 respectively. Not only that the Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh in a letter addressed to the Complainant on 17.4.2008 had also stated that his vehicle Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) could not be registered, as the Manufacture has not obtained the approval of the Secretary Transport, U.T. Chandigarh and, therefore, the original file on the subject was returned to him on the said date. Finally, as admitted by the OPs themselves, the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration approved the vehicle with the nomenclature as Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) on 29.5.2008 also confirming that the approval was being allowed at the request of the OPs No. 2 & 3, on the basis of ARAI Certificate issued by ARAI, Pune, vide their No. ARAI/CMVR/079B(E3-1365, 589)/2008-257, dated 15.4.2008. The pleadings of the OPs stating that they had already obtained such a certification from ARAI, Pune on 7.2.2007 is patently false, which is proved by Annexure R-I enclosed by the OPs themselves. The certificate issued by ARAI, dated 7.2.2007 shows the classification of Gasoline Engine Model K7MF7 with the base model as Logan GSL 1.6. Therefore, this certificate has nothing to do with the vehicle purchased by the Complainant from OPs, which is Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) car. Even the subsequent approval given by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure R-2) once again shows the model of the Car as Logan GSL 1.6 in accordance with the certificate issued by the ARAI, Pune, dated 7.2.2007. The approval accorded by the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration still later i.e. on 14.2.2008, also shows the basic model as Logan GSL 1.6 (Annexure R-3). Therefore, from all counts, it is an admitted and established fact that the vehicle in question purchased by the Complainant from the OPs i.e. Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) was not approved by any authority i.e. either ARAI, Pune or Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration till as late as 29.5.2008. All this has resulted in a lot of physical harassment, mental agony, pain, as well as financial loss to the Complainant. The Complainant had to continuously pursue the matter in respect of getting a permanent registration number of his brand new car for more than 3 months, solely due to the fact that the OPs, especially OPs No. 2 & 3 had been grossly careless, negligent and gravely deficient in rendering efficient service towards the Complainant. The basic and fundamental point, which should have been taken care of by the OPs was that no new model of any vehicle/car could be brought in the Market for sale unless and until the same had been got approved from the concerned Authorities i.e. ARAI, Pune, in the first instance and followed by approval from the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, the OPs are not only deficient in service, but has also indulged in an unfair trade practice by misleading the Complainant, as well as public at large into believing that the cars with the model Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) carry the certification, confirmation and approval of the competent authorities and that the buyer shall be able to drive that car on the road without facing any problem or hassles in respect of obtaining its permanent registration.    

8]      Keeping in view the foregoings, it is our considered opinion that the case of the Complainant has a lot of merit, weight and substance and deserves its acceptance. We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs and pass the following order.

9]      In view of above, the OPs are directed to pay, jointly and severally, a consolidated compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant, for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain, in addition to the inconvenience and embarrassment caused to him in pursuing his professional duties, apart from suffering financial loss.

10]     In addition to the above, the OPs have clearly indulged in an unfair trade practice, as defined under Section 2(r)(1)(iv), reading as under:-

“[r] unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-

xx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(iv) represents that the goods or         services have sponsorship,          approval,performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have;”

11]     In the present case, it has been established and proved that OPs have sold a particular model of the car – Logan GLX 1.6 (Petrol Version) to the Complainant, without getting it duly certified, confirmed and approved from the competent authorities i.e. ARAI, Pune and Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh. Therefore, in such circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to grant punitive damages in terms of Section 14(d) and (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reading as under:-

“14(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party;

Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;”

14(hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently;

Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less than five per cent of the value of such defective goods sold or services provided, as the case may be, to such consumers;

Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed;”

12]     In view of above, we impose punitive damages on the OPs to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakh, which shall be payable by them, jointly and severally. The said amount be deposited by the OPs with the State Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh.

13]     The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within a period of 06 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall pay the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 21.4.2008, till the date of realization.

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

Announced

05.04.2010                                       Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                               Sd/-

 (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                               Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’