DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.470 of 2016

                                                 Date of institution:  08.08.2016                                                         Date of decision   :  06.12.2021

Sanjay Kumar Mishra son of Shri Vijay Kumar, resident of # 201 H, Shivalik Vihar, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam Gurugram Road, Gurugram 122015 through its Chief General Manager.

2.     M/s. Maruti Suzuki (1) Ltd. Regional Office, North-II, SCO No.39-40, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, U.T. Chandigarh 160008 through its Regional Manager.

3.     Tricity Autos, Maruti Suzuki Authorised Dealer, Zirakpur Patiala Highway, Near Nada Sahib Gurudwara, Zirakpur, Punjab through its Managing Director.

……..Opposite Parties

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Salil Sablok, counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

                Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for OP No.3.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short), on the ground that the CC booked Maruti Alto LXI on 27.12.2015 with OP No.3 and paid the booking amount to the tune of Rs.10,150/-. Again on 31.12.2015 the CC deposited Rs.13,398/- with OP No.3. The CC was given assurance that the car will be delivered to him on 01.01.2016, but the car was delivered to the CC after one week alongwith temporary registration Mark TC, Chassis No.622726 and Engine No.5403948. The grievance of the CC is that when he got the registration certificate, he was shocked to see that the manufacturing date on the RC was of March, 2015 which shows that the vehicle was about 10 months old from the date of its booking. Even insurance company was not of the choice of the CC. The CC had given option to subscribe to the policy of National Insurance company, but the insurance supplied by the OP No.3 was of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd. Even the booklet of the vehicle was in the name of somebody else. It is alleged that OP No.3 took the signatures on undertaking form when the CC received copy of the same from OP No.3. The CC filed various complaints against OP No.3 to the Company, but of no use.

                Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the CC has sought refund of the amount which is the sale consideration of the Car. The CC further sought Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The complaint of the CC is duly signed, verified and is also supported by an affidavit.

2.             In reply OP No.1 and 2 have denied any deficiency in service on their part by raising various preliminary objections. It is specifically alleged that there is no privty of contract between the CC and OP No.1 and 2. It is further pleaded that the CC is not the consumer of OP No.1 and 2. It is further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable against OP No.1 and 2, which is a company. Agreement between OP No.1 and 2 and OP No.3 is based on principal to principal basis as is evident from Clause 5 of the agreement. Even the grievance of the CC is not related to any manufacturing defect. As such OP No.1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.3 is mainly contesting the claim of the CC. In reply OP No.3 has specifically alleged that it is correct that Maruti Alto 800 CC car was booked by the CC with it on 27.12.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.10,150/-. Thereafter the CC paid the balance amount to OP No.3. It is averred by OP No.3 that the manufacturing month of the car was March, 2015 but the vehicle in question was brand new and was lying as it is and was delivered to the CC by OP No.3. It is alleged that the CC himself went to the parking lot and opted for this particular car which was readily available for him and he specifically knew the manufacturing month and date and after getting fully satisfied, the vehicle was received by the CC. It is specifically alleged that the CC also signed satisfaction note with regard to the manufacturing month and year of the vehicle. It is further alleged that there is no cause of action to the CC to file the present complaint. On merits, the averments of the complaint have been denied and prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19.  Counsel for OP No.1 and 2 made statement on 24.10.2017 that he does not want to tender any evidence.  OP No.3 submitted affidavit of Sidharth Garg, its authorized signatory Ex.OP-3/1 and document Ex.OP-3/2.

 4.            We have heard the complainant and counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record of the case.

5.             The main grievance of the CC is only against OP No.3. There is no grievance of the CC against OP No.1 and 2 since the CC has not alleged any manufacturing defect or any kind of defect in the car which he purchased from OP No.3. It is specifically proved on file that there is privty of contract between OP No.1,2  and OP No.3. Otherwise also the grouse of the CC is only against OP No.3. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 and there is no such evidence led on record by the CC against OP No.1 and 2.

ow

6.             The point in controversy before us is whether OP No.3 intentionally sold the old car of March, 2015, in 2016  to the CC by concealing the date and month of manufacturing of the vehicle from the CC or not. It is pertinent to mention here that the CC himself has submitted one document Ex.C-9 alongwith his complaint wherein it is clearly mentioned that the CC is receiving the car manufactured in the month of March, 2015. The document is duly signed by the CC. The CC has not specifically denied this document or has not specifically alleged that his signatures were forged or that he has not signed this document Ex.C-9. We are surprised that how the CC is alleging deficiency in service or mal practice against OP No.3, after very well knowing the date and year of manufacturing of the car which he had purchased from OP No.3.  We feel, that the reason for filing the present complaint may be something else.  It appears that the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands.

7.             In view of above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.  Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

December 06, 2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                       I agree.

(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)

Member