Haryana

Panchkula

CC/199/2015

SUHAIL SYAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PADAM MOTORS &ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

ARUNA SACHDEVA.

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	199 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	24.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	10.02.2016

                                                                                          

Suhail Syal, # 11, Bhogpur Mallah Road, Pinjore, Kalka.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Managing Director, Padam Motors (Pvt.) Ltd., Plot No.363, Industrial Area-II, Panchkula (Haryana).
2. The Managing Director, Renault, 4^th Floor, ASV Ramana Towers, 37 & 38 Venkatnavayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600017.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor. Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Ms.Aruna Sachdeva, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Adv., for the Op No.1.

Op No.2 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Duster Diesel RXZ ,woodland brown colour on 10.04.2015 bearing engine No.0037349 bearing chassis No.1002971 model February, 2015 as per sale certificate from the Op No.1. On the same day i.e. on 10.04.2015, the Op No.1 also issued a defective/fabricated invoice number regarding colour of the body of the vehicle to the complainant as in actual the colour of the vehicle was woodland brown but the invoice showed the defected/fabricated colour of body pearl white. The complainant approached the Op No.1 to rectify the mistake in invoice and also filed an affidavit reporting the mistake of invoice of the company and demanded written unconditional apology letter regarding the invoice but the Op No.1 has not issued any document in favour of the complainant. The complainant registered his vehicle from Registering Authority MV Kalka bearing registration No.HR-49-D-044 on defective/ fabricated /wrong invoice. After going through the RC, the complainant came to know that the colour of the vehicle was mentioned as Pearl White in Registration Certificate whereas the actual colour of vehicle is Woodland Brown. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Registration Authority of Kalka regarding the colour of the vehicle which informed the complainant that in the invoice, the colour of the body of the vehicle is Pearl White, therefore, they were helpless to change the same. The complainant approached the Op No.1 asking for original invoice of the Duster Diesel RXZ which was purchased on 10.04.2015 by the complainant alongwith affidavit but the OP No.1 gave no positive reponse. Due to the act of the Op No.1, the complainant was harassed many times by the police of Panchkula and Chandigarh and also they suspected that the vehicle was stolen one and that spoiled the reputation of the complainant on several occasions. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 20.07.2015 to Op No.1 but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant was surprised to know the fact that the vehicle was of 12.12.2014 and it was sold as February, 2015. This act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant has purchased a vehicle Duster diesel in Woodland Brown Colour. It is submitted that at the time of issuance of invoice of the vehicle, the colour of the vehicle was wrongly mentioned as pearl white. It is submitted that the said mistake could not be detected by the officials of the OP No.1 or even by the complainant. Even the said mistake escaped the eyes of the officials of registration authority, who had inspected the vehicle before registration of the vehicle. It is submitted that only after registration of the vehicle, the complainant detected the mistake and thereafter, approached the OP No.1 regarding wrong mentioning of the colour in the invoice. Thereafter, the Op No.1 checked his record and found that due to typographical/cut-paste mistake in the computer, the colour of the vehicle was wrongly mentioned as pearl white. Thereafter, the official of OP No.1 requested the complainant to handover the original registration certificate alongwith other required documents so that they may get the registration certificate re-issued from the registration authority with correct particulars of colour but the complainant said that all the expenses for getting the correction in the registration certificate should be borne by the Op No.1. It is submitted that the complainant instead of handing over the registration certificate/signing the required documents, issued a legal notice on false facts. In response to the legal notice, the officials of Op No.1 approached the complainant and offered him to get the registration certificate re-issued from the registration authority on their expenses. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.2. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.11.2015.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 & R1/2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the material on record carefully.
6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a Duster Diesel RXZ, woodland brown colour on 10.04.2015 from the Op No.1 for an amount of Rs.13,02,679/- but in the sale certificate of the vehicle detail at Sr. No.11 the colour of the body of vehicle is mentioned as Pearl White (Annexure C-1). In the registration certificate, the colour of the vehicle is also mentioned as Pearl White, which is evident from Annexure C-2. The grievance of the complainant is that he approached the Op No.1 to rectify the mistake in invoice but the Op No.1 did not give any response and due to that act of the Op No.1, the complainant was harassed by the Police of Panchkula and Chandigarh as they suspected that the vehicle was stolen one which spoiled the reputation of the complainant. The complainant also issued legal notice to the Op No.1 thereof.
7. On the other hand, the Op No.1 has taken the plea that due to typographical mistake in computer, the colour of the vehicle was wrongly mentioned as peal white. Although the Op No.1 requested the complainant to handover the original registration certificate alongwith other required documents and they would get the registration certificate reissued from the Registration Authority whereas the complainant issued legal notice. After receiving the legal notice, the Op No.1 offered the complainant that they would get the registration certificate reissued from the Registration Authority on their own expenses.
8. From the above discussion, it reveals that the Op No.1 did the mistake in mentioning the colour of the vehicle in sale certificate as they mentioned the colour of the vehicle pearl white instead of woodland brown which is also accepted by the Op No.1 in his written statement. The Op No.1 also offered the complainant that they would get the registration certificate reissued from the Registration Authority on their own expenses. The acceptance of the Op No.1 proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1. Moreover, the Op No.2 also did not present to contest the claim of the complainant and was proceeded against exparte.
9. For the reasons mentioned in the above paras, we are of the view that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed accordingly. The following directions are as under:

1. The OP No.1 is directed to get the registration certificate reissued from the Registration Authority on its own expenses and the complainant is also directed to cooperate with the Op No.1 in submission of documents.

(ii)     The Ops No.1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

2. The Ops No.1 and 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation.

10. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced

10.02.2016         S.P.ATTRI            ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                            MEMBER          MEMBER                   PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT