Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/99

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.K Motors - Opp.Party(s)

17 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPER

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 99 of 23.10.2018

                                 Date of decision                     :    17.07.2019

 

 

Narinder Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh, resident of House No.288, Ward No.5, Kainaur Road, Near Lightening chowk, Morinda, District Rupnagar. 

 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. N.K. Motors, Plot No.C-71, Phase VI, Near Motor Market and near New Bus Stand, Mohali, Punjab through its Manager/proprietor

2.  
3.  

 

   ...Opposite Parties

 

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                       Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

 

Sh. Narinder Singh, complainant in person  

Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

Sh. Gagandeep Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2

          Sh. Rahul Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.3 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.    Narinder Singh son of Sh. Karnail Singh, resident of House No.288, Ward No.5, Kainaur Road, Near Lightening chowk, Morinda, District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties either to replace the auto with new one or to return the price of the auto; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation charges, in the interest of justice.  

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 29.01.2018, the complainant had purchased the new auto make Atul, bearing Chassis No.MCG27P3CEA1891755, Engine No.EAR17M4899, Model 29.01.2018 from the O.P. No.1. At the time of selling the vehicle, O.P. No.1 had not issued the bill. The complainant had paid Rs.36,000/- at the time of its purchasing and the remaining amount was financed from the Hinduja Finance Company, Ropar i.e. OP No.2. Moreover, at the time of selling the vehicle the O.P. gave assurance to him to get the vehicle registered in his name and they would gave the Registration Certificate but the O.Ps. have failed to hand over the RC of the vehicle. Thereafter, he paid four installments of Rs.7300/- each to the O.P. No.2, who issued the receipt. After purchase of the vehicle, it started creating problems like not functioning properly, there was a leakage of oil through differential seal, oil level going down after leakage of seal, the engine of the vehicle was also not giving proper voice etc. The complainant had requested many times to the O.Ps. for repair of the vehicle in question but all in vain. Hence, this complaint.      

 3.   On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint; that the complaint is hopelessly time barred and beyond limitation. On merits, it is stated that the answering O.P. is running their business under the name and style of NK Motors, Opposite Flyover, Near JP Hospitl, Zirakpur and near Phase 6, New Motor Market, Near Bus Stand, Mohali and used to sell autos in the areas of Zirakpur and Mohali at the above address. Moreover, the complainant had purchased auto vehicles from answering OP from Mohali and while purchasing the same, he also mentioned his address as Narinder Singh, resident of House No.1128, Phase 9, Mohali. The vehicle was purchased from Mohali and O.Ps. office is situated at Mohali and Zirakpur and no cause of action has ever accrued to the complainant within the jurisdiction of District Ropar. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant himself violated the terms and condition of the agreement dated 31.3.2018, which was executed by the complainant in favour of O.P. No.2; that the complaint has been filed just to grab the compensation by exercising undue influence. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.1 and the same was financed from O.P. No.2 after fulfilling all the legal formalities and taking the full consent of the complainant and he also executed the agreement regarding the finance of vehicle with OP No.2 and had assured the O.P. No.2 regarding deposit timely of the fixed installment i.e. Rs.7300/- per month. but the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the agreement by not depositing installments regularly. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

5.    On being put to notice, the O.P. No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is false and frivolous; that on 29.01.2018, the complainant had purchased the new auto make "Atul" from OP No.2 who is the authorized dealer of Atul Auto Limited Company i.e. OP No.3. On merits, it is stated that at the first instance complaint was filed by the complainant against O.Ps. No.1 & 2 who are the dealer and financer of the vehicle but thereafter, the complainant had filed amended complaint by impleading the answering O.P, who is the manufacturing company of the vehicle only to involve the company on the pretext of manufacturing defect. But the true facts of the case are that the dispute is only with regard to the Registration Certificate and not paying the installment regularly and as complainant is not giving the relevant and mandatory document to the O.P. No.2 for the registration of the vehicle and due to that RC of the vehicle could not be issued. There is no dispute between the complainant and answering O.P. but the complainant is making false allegation only to harass the company. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

6.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Ashwani Kumar, proprietor NK Motors Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for OP No.2 has tendered copy of loan agreement Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for OP No.3 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Ashraf Ali, Engineer Ex.OP3/A along with documents Ex.OP3/B to Ex.OP3/M and closed the evidence. 

7.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.    Complainant counsel Sh. Yatish Mittal and the complainant in person argued that Narinder Singh (complainant) purchased the new auto make Atul on 29.1.2018 from the OP No.1 i.e. N.K. Motors. At the time of purchase, he made the down payment of Rs.36,000/-, whereas the remaining amount was financed from the OP No.2 that is the financer). It is further argued that the EMI was Rs.7300/- per month and besides this he handed over five blank cheques to the OP. After the purchase, the vehicle started creating problem as the vehicle was not properly functioning and there was a leakage of oil through differential seal, thus, oil level going down etc. The complainant approached the OP No.1 on various times for its repair and also requested to deliver the RC as OP No.1 charged the price as well as RC charges. The complainant requested that due to manufacturing defect and on account of the reason of non delivery of the RC, deficiency stands proved. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with costs.

9.    Sh. Navdeep Sharma, counsel for O.P. No.1 argued that the O.P. No.1 is running their business under the name and style of N.K. Motors, Opposite Flyover, Near JP Hospital, Zirakpur and near Phase 6, new motor market, new bus stand, Mohali and used to sell autos in the areas of Zirakpur and Mohali. In this complaint, complainant has mentioned his address at House No.1128,  Phase ( Mohali and the vehicle purchased from Mohali and O.Ps. office is situated at Mohali and Zirakpur so this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint qua O.P. No.1 

10.   The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 argued that complainant has sought relief against OP No.1. OP No.2 denied the allegations like the plea taken in the written reply. It made prayer that the complaint is not maintainable against them as the OP No.2 financed the vehicle and qua the finance, there is no dispute. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint qua O.P. No.2.    

11.   Counsel for OP No.3 Sh. Rahul Sharma argued that complainant Narinder Singh purchased the vehicle from OP No.1 i.e. NK Motors on 29.01.2018 in which he has given the address of House No.1128, Phase 9, Mohali. In the complaint, nowhere pleaded the manufacturing defect if defect is of service as well as of RC i.e. between the complainant and OP No.1, if there is manufacturing defect then OP No.3 is held responsible. In the complaint as well as the evidence there is no evidence relating to the expert evidence of defect. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint qua OP No.3

12.   In the head note of the complaint, Narinder Singh, given his address House No.288, Ward No.5, Kainaur Road, Morinda, District Rupnagar. Beside this there is photocopy of his Adhar Card which is Mark A and photocopy of the Ration Card which is Mark B, in which the address is mentioned as in the head note of the complaint. Both the parties placed on file various documents, complainant pleaded residential address of District Ropar and this address was given to the OP No.2 (financer) but in the sale certificate OP No.1 mentioned the address in Ex.C4 #1128, Phase 9, Mohali. When the financer mentioned address of Ropar, RC as well as Adhar Card proves the address of Ropar then on what ground OP No.1 mentioned the address of Mohali. It means at the time of sale OP No.1 did not find out the correct parental address/Adhar Card either for the purpose of malpractice or to get benefit of sale of this vehicle. So the this forum has jurisdiction and the complaint is maintainable.

13.   Complainant pleaded deficiency in service and to prove deficiency referred documentary evidence Ex.C1 to Ex.C16, which proves complainant has been visiting the OP No.1 time and again to remove the defect. He also approached to the police but without any result. Hence, approached this forum. Ex.C11 is the application moved by the complainant to SSP Mohali and then the requests to remove the defect and also to issue the RC. So far the OP No.3 is concerned i.e. manufacturer, the complainant has not brought on file the positive evidence relating to the manufacturing defect. Similarly, no dispute with the financer. So, the complaint against OPs. No.2 & 3 stands dismissed.

14.   Coming to the OP No.1, who sold the vehicle to the complainant, complaint speaks on 29.1.2018, complainant purchased the vehicle by making down payment of Rs.36,000/- whereas the remaining amount was financed. EMI was of Rs.7300/- and further in the para No.9 complainant pleaded the creating problem by the vehicle. In support of the claim, complainant placed on file his sworn affidavit Ex.C1, Trade Certificate under rule 35 of the Motor Vehicle Act Ex.C2, proposal form of the vehicle of insurance Ex.C3, Ex.C4 is temporary Registration Certificate then the other documents are regarding to the service. OP No.1 NK Motors issued the job cards Ex.C8 & Ex.C10 then the request to the engineer of NK Motors Ex.C9, vide which request is made to remove the defect. Keeping in view the documents placed on file by the complainant as well as OP No.1, the forum has come to the conclusion that due to technical defect or improper working of the vehicle, the complainant had to visit the workshop of OP. No.1 many times since the purchase. It also stands established that till today there is no Registration Certificate relating to the vehicle in favour of the complainant. When the vehicle has been purchased under the Motor Vehicle Act, which is amended from time to time it is the prime duty of the seller to firstly insure the vehicle, then issue the temporary Registration Certificate along with deposit of requisite RC charges and then to hand over the vehicle to the purchaser. So, the relief claimed by the complainant is relating to the RC also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

15.   In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the OP No.1 to get the Registration Certificate issued by fulfilling the proper documents within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and at the same time, the complainant is directed to deliver the vehicle to the OP No.1 within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then OP No.1 to remove all the defects. The vehicle will be handed over to the complainant by the OP No.1 after thorough investigation/repair.            

 16.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.   

                     ANNOUNCED                                      (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.17.07.2019                    PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER