Delhi

New Delhi

CC/452/2012

Dr. Shernaz H.Cama - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Triumph Motors India Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTRICT NEW DELHI,  M-BLOCK, 1^ST FLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P. ESTATE. NEW DELHI-1100001.

 

C.C.No.452/2012

 

Dr. Shernaz H. Cama ,

C-53, G.F. Anand Niketan,

New Delhi-110021.

 …..Complainant

                Vs.

 

1. Triumph Motors India Pvt. Ltd.,

(Prop. Shriya Overseas Pvt. Ltd.),

Authorized Dealer for General Motors India Pvt. Ltd.

E-13/29, Harsha Bhavan, Middle Circle,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.

 

2. General Motors,

Having its registered office at

Chandrapura Industrial Estate,

Halol-389351, Dist. Panchmahals,

1.  

 

......Opposite Parties

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant visited the showroom of OP-1 on 16.2.2008.  On the said date the valuer of OP-1 inspected and verified the paper of Tata Indigo Car bearing No.DL3CAC2229 for affecting the exchange offer proposed by OPs.  After completing the verification, an amount of Rs.2,55,000/- was offered towards exchange price by OP-1  The complainant found  said offer reasonable and as such accepted the same and paid an advance of Rs.25,000/- to OP-1 an advance.  The complainant purchased a new car on 22.2.2008.  On 24.2.2008, after adjusting the payment of Rs.2,55,000/- being the exchange price of Tata Indigo Car bearing No.DL3CAC2229, the complainant paid the balance amount to OP-1.  But   the OP-1 was negligent and deficient in providing the services to the complainant by not transferring a Tata Car took over by it from the complainant under a car exchange offer despite completing the requisite transfer formalities such as the transfer form duly signed by the complainant in favour of OP-1.   

2.     It is further stated that the Tata Indigo Car bearing No.DL3CAC2229 was exchanged by the complainant toward the part payment of new car in February 2008, the possession of the said car along with all the necessary papers were handed over to OP-1 for doing the needful.      The complainant received court summon from MACT, Palwal regarding the death claim arising out of the accident that took place on 7.3.2011, then only he came to know that OP-1 had not transferred the ownership in regard to Tata Indigo Car and had sold and handed over to one Sh. Digmber, in contravention  of the motor vehicle rules.  On account of deficiency on the part of OP-1, the registration paper of the vehicle still bear the name of the complainant after three years of exchange of the vehicle in question.  The complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs for involving the complainant to unwarranted litigation and entangled her into Civil and Criminal proceedings and financial liabilities. The OP failed to reply the legal notice, complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of her grievances.

3.     Complaint has been contested by both the OPs.  OP-1 has filed its written statement  wherein it denied any deficiency in service  on its part.  OP-1 stated that the complainant had sold out the Tata Indigo Car bearing No.DL3CAC2229 to 3^rd person and all the documents of sale/purchase has been given by the complainant to her purchaser.  Neither the car in question was handed over to OP-1 nor a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- adjusted on account of exchange price of Tata Indigo Car bearing No.DL3CAC2229 against new one., and further prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     OP-2 has stated in its written statement that there is no privity of contract of sale between the complainant and OP-2 and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed on this sole ground qua OP-2. 

5.     All  the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

6.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

7.     It is argued by the complainant that she handed over the  Tata Indigo Car bearing No.DL3CAC2229 to OP-1 against exchange of new vehicle after completing necessary formalities of transfer such as the Form-29 & 39 in favour of OP-1.  Non-transferring of the ownership/registration regarding the same   on the part of OP-1 involved the complainant to unwarranted litigation and entangled her into Civil and Criminal proceedings and financial liabilities as such she is entitled for the relief claim.  On the other hand, it is stated by OP-1 that  neither the car in question was handed over to OP-1 nor a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- adjusted on account of exchange price of Tata Indigo Car bearing No.DL3CAC2229 against new one.

8.     Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to place on record, any document which shows that she had transferred/handed over the car in question in favour of OP-1.  She has placed on record, the copy of the receipt , copy of Form 29 & 30 along with her complaint.  All these documents bears the signature of the complainant and remaining contents of the same were blank.  In such a circumstances, it is difficult to us to rely upon the averments made in the complaint. 

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in services against OPs. We find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

 

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on   19/07/2019 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER