DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 192 of 2015
Date of institution: 28.04.2015 Date of decision : 18.07.2017
Sukhpal Singh Gill son of Harkewal Singh, resident of House No.193, Sector 78, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Padam Motors Private Limited, Renault Tricity Mohali, Metro Towers, Sector 58, Shahi Majra, Mohali through its Director.
2. Renault India Pvt. Limited (RIPL) Regional Office (North) at Avanta Biz Centre, 6th Floor, BPTP Park, Centra, Sector 30, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Regional Officer/Authorised.
(Name of OP No.2 deleted vide order dated 15.10.2015).
3. Renault India Pvt. Limited (RIPL), Head Office at ASV, Ramana Towers, # 37-38, 4th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Ruhani Chadha, proxy counsel for Shri Rahul Bhargav, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Sandeep Jasuja, counsel for OP No.1.
Name of OP No.2 already deleted.
OP No.3 ex-parte.
ORDER
By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member
1. The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that he purchased a new vehicle on 23.02.2015 from authorised dealer i.e. OP No.1 for consideration price of Rs.8,15,000/-. The particulars of the said car are Sedan Car Model Scala Variant RXL (O) bearing Chassis No.MEEAHBA41E1011157, Engine No.E040382 colour silver, Key No.S19681. However, the bill has been retained by the dealer and it has not been issued to the complainant which is also a deficiency in service by OP No.1. The receipt No.2042 dated 16.02.2015 was issued by OP No.1. After the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant has taken the vehicle for first service to the workshop of dealer i.e. OP No.1. At the time of emptying the car before service, in the boot space of the car, under the spare tyre complainant found an invoice dated 15.12.2014 issued in the name of Gurjant Singh having Mobile No.8437033909 having some chassis number ending with 1011157 and this document was signed by Branch Head in which it was specifically mentioned that said car was sent to the said agency on 15.12.2014 for colouring of bonnet, front bumper, left side, front side of front door.
The complainant was astonished, shocked and surprised to find such document in the car. As a matter of fact, it was a transfer note for drivers. In the remarks column for any problem, it has been clearly mentioned that problem found at destination branch and not reported by starting branch. Under that head bonnet colour, bumper front, left side door front, Teflon coating and inside dry clean ASAP has been mentioned. Under PDI reporting, which is pre-delivery inspection reporting, under the head scratch, it has been tick marked. Complainant alleged that perusal of the transfer note clearly reveals that the vehicle sold to the complainant was accidental vehicle, the bonnet of which has been repainted, front bumper has been repaired, left side and front door has been repainted. The vehicle has met with an accident prior to delivery and after repainting the same, it has been sold to the complainant. The complainant immediately approached the OPs to resolve the issue but of no avail. This is a sheer example of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. The complainant has apprehension that even the engine of the vehicle has been damaged in an accident and, therefore, he request for replacement of the vehicle as it is the fit case to order the replacement of vehicle.
Lastly, the complainant prayed for direction to the OPs to refund the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.8,15,000/- with 9% interest per annum alongwith compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for harassment and Rs.22,000/- for litigation expenses.
2. After issuance of notice, service to the OPs, OP No.1 filed written statement. OP No.2 was deleted from the array of the OPs vide order dated 15.10.2015. OP No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.06.2015.
3. OP No.1 took preliminary objections that complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious; it is filed with ulterior motive to take undue benefit; complainant has not come to court with clean hands; the total cost of the 2015 Model Scala RXL Vehicle on 16.02.2015 was Rs.9,52,188/-. The complainant preferred to buy the 2014 Model vehicle available on special discount for Rs.8,15,000/- and the said price included the insurance amount, logistic charges and essential pack cost. The complainant at the time of taking of the delivery of vehicle satisfied himself regarding the physical condition of the vehicle and even signed a declaration to that effect. So complainant availed special discount of Rs.1,37,188/- and he has checked the vehicle himself.
That the complainant has filed the present complaint primarily on the basis of documents Annexure C-6 alleging the same to be an invoice dated 15.12.2014. The said document is nothing but a transfer note for the driver, who bring the vehicle from stock yard and vide which instructions are given to the driver to get a particular job done from the workshop in order to prepare the vehicle for displaying in the showroom for sale. Moreover, the said document has been tempered with by the complainant to make out a case against the respondent. The complainant has indulged in the forgery by inserting a line containing the words ‘Bonut colour, bumper front, left side and front door’ between the two lines written by the official of the answering respondent to claim that repair work was got done on the vehicle. However, the tempering of the document so done by the complainant is evident from the fact that the line inserted by him is in blue ink whereas the actual instruction was given by the official of the answering respondent in green ink for undertaking the job of Teflon coating and inside dry cleaning of the vehicle for keeping the said car ready for sale on discounted price. However, the complainant in order to take illegal benefit out of the same has indulged in forging/tempering with the transfer note and as such the present complaint deserves to be dismissed considering the above facts. The true copy of the coloured transfer note depicting the clear tempering done by the complainant is Ex.OP-6.
That a perusal of the transfer note Ex.OP-6 would show that the jobs which were instructed to be done were in fact ordered for preparing the vehicle for sale. The Teflon coating and the inside dry cleaning are the jobs which are necessary for preparing the vehicle, which has remained parked in the stock yard for a long time and the same does not mean that the vehicle had any defect or the same was accidental. As per the policy of the answering respondent all the vehicles, which remains unsold for a long time are sold on discount in the month of December (year end). The vehicle sold to the complainant was also got ready for the said purpose on 15.12.2014. However, the said vehicle remained unsold and was later sold to the complainant in the month of February 2015. It is again submitted that the vehicle in question was sold by making huge discount and the complainant had purchased the same with clear knowledge and finding the same as a good bargain. The vehicle was not accidental and was a brand new vehicle having just 6 km at the time of sale and thus was a brand new vehicle for all intents and purposes.
That the complainant has tried to make out a case that the transfer note is an invoice issued in the name of one Gurjant Singh to project that the vehicle in question was a second hand vehicle. However, as submitted above, the said document is a transfer note. The said transfer note was issued to the driver/employee of the answering respondent namely Gurjant Singh who is certainly not the customer of the answering respondent. To substantiate the same, the answering respondent is enclosing the document i.e. the employees State Insurance Corporation Temporary Identity Certificate, Identity Card issued by the answering respondent to Gurjant Singh driver, driving license of Gurjant Singh and the Sim/Mobile form issuing the mobile SIm to Gurjant Singh being an employee of answering respondent are annexed herewith as Annexure R-1/9 (colly).
On merits, OP No.1 denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant and lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW-1/1; copies of receipts dated 16.02.2015 and 21.02.2015 Ex.C-1 and C-2; challan ex.C-3; temporary certificate of registration Ex.C-4; insurance policy Ex.C-5; transfer note for driver Ex.C-6; job sheet Ex.C-7 and e-mail/reply Ex.C-8. In rebuttal the counsel OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dheeraj Ghai, its Branch Manager Ex.OP-1/1; copies of resolution Ex.OP-1; invoice dated 31.01.2014 Ex.OP-2; temporary number issued to Gurpal Singh Ex.OP-2/A; delivery challan Ex.OP-2/B; insurance cover note Ex.OP-2/C, invoice dated 01.02.2014 Ex.OP-2/D; sale invoice dated 15.02.2015 Ex.OP-2/E; sale certificate dated 15.02.2015 Ex.OP-2/F; form No.22 Ex.OP-2/G; receipt dated 16.02.2015 and 23.02.2015 Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4; satisfaction note Ex.OP-5; declaration Ex.OP-6; temporary identity certificate Ex.OP-7; driving license and ID card Ex.Op-8 and sim/mobile issue form Ex.OP-9.
5. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and gone through the file. Complainant is consumer of OP No.1 as he has purchased the vehicle for consideration for his self use. The vehicle is purchased in February, 2015 and complaint is filed on 28.04.2015. So it is within prescribed period of limitation of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The value of the vehicle and claim claimed by the complainant is less than Rs.20.00 lacs and, therefore, falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Further, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the cause of action arose to the complainant within jurisdiction of this Forum.
6. The main allegation of the complainant is that OP No.1 sold repaired and accidental vehicle to him without disclosing this fact to him. To prove it, he relied upon Ex.C-6 which is ‘Transfer Note for Drivers’. He relied upon PDI reporting whereby tick mark (√) yes is on the scratch column meaning thereby that there are scratches on the car. Further, in column ‘any problem found at destination and not reported by starting branch’ it is written bonnet colour, bumper front, left side and front door meaning thereby that bonnet, bumper front, left side front door of the vehicle are coloured and repaired by them. The complainant has apprehension that even the engine of the vehicle has been damaged in an accident. The OP No.1 specifically denied the allegations. It is stated that the document so mentioned by the complainant is in fact the transfer note, which is issued to the drivers, who bring the vehicle in order to prepare the same for parking in the showroom for the purpose of sale. Further OP No.1 states that nothing is written by the officials of OP No.1. OP No.1 alleged that complainant inserted the line by tempering with the documents, to make out a case for claiming compensation against OPs.
7. In order to prove his complaint, complainant relied upon Ex.C-6 which is ‘Transfer Note for Drivers’ under PDI reporting, which is pre-delivery inspection reporting under the head scratch, it has been tick mark (√) in positive. In the remark column for any problem, it has been clearly mentioned that problem found at destination and not reported by starting branch’. Under that head ‘bonnet colour, bumper front, left side front door, Teflon coating and inside dry clean ASAP has been mentioned. The complainant alleged that these lines are written by the official of OP No.1 who has pointed out the defect and removed the same. On the other hand, OP No.1 alleges that this line is inserted by the complainant in order to seek compensation from OP No.1. So there is no controversy that the said vehicle has gone to workshop on 15.12.2014. The point of controversy is whether this line is inserted in the document ‘Transfer Note for Drivers’ by the complainant or by the staff of OP No.1. Ex.OP-6 which is ‘Transfer Note for Drivers’ reveals that the official i.e. Branch Head Starting Branch wrote in green colour ink. Ex.OP-6 is the same document, copy of which is placed by the complainant as Ex.C-6. If the middle line was written by the complainant, then he should have written in the same colour i.e. green colour. He should have not written it in blue colour ink taking the precaution being well aware of the fact that it is to be used in the Court of Law. So, it is clear that it was not inserted by the complainant but it is written in blue ink by the person of OP No.1 in its usual and routine matter in a casual way in response to the wording of Branch Head Starting Branch and, therefore, the wording written by Branch Head Starting Branch is in green colour ink whereas middle line is written in blue colour ink by the person of OP No.1. Further, if this middle line is written by the complainant then it should have appeared only on his document i.e. Ex.C-6 which is copy of ‘Transfer Note of Drivers’ being in his possession and this middle written in blue colour ink could not appear on the document of OP No.1 i.e. Ex.OP-6. OP No.1 failed to justify that how the complainant is able to write this line on their document which is in their possession. So, it is clear that OP No.1 has sold the complainant a repaired vehicle without disclosing him the same fact. No doubt OP No.1 has given heavy discount to the complainant on the vehicle but at the same time he did not disclose him that the vehicle was repaired one. It amounts to unfair trade practice by OP No.1. The OP No.1 took stand that the complainant has checked the vehicle before purchase and he also signed the satisfaction voucher. It will not be helpful to OP No.1 because the defect is a latent defect and not the patent one, which cannot be discovered by ordinary vision of human sense. The complainant is claiming refund of whole amount of Rs.8,15,000/- alongwith 9% interest per annum further alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
8. The complainant proved complaint against OP No.1 to the limited extent that the vehicle has scratches, its bonnet is repainted, bumper of front is repaired and left side of front door is repaired. Complainant also took discount of Rs.1,37,188/- from OP No.1. The only wrong on the part of OP No.1 is that he sold the vehicle to the complainant without disclosing him that it is repaired one which amounts to unfair trade otherwise OP No.1 gave discount of Rs.1,37,188/- to the complainant.
9. The complainant states that he has apprehension that engine of vehicle might have been damaged in the alleged accident. In the absence of any expert evidence to that effect it cannot be said that the engine has been damaged. The complainant could prove his complaint easily by leading evidence of expert in the concerned field regarding damage to engine which he failed to prove. The mere apprehension, however, strong cannot take the place of proof that the alleged accident has damaged the engine. Complainant succeeded only in proving that the vehicle was taken to workshop for repair of bonnet, front bumper and left side of front door and, therefore, he deserves to be compensated only on that account and hence we direct OP No.1 to pay compensation of Rs. One lakh only to the complainant alongwith Rs. Twenty thousand only as litigation expenses within 45 days from the date of order failing which he will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its actual realisation. Complaint partly allowed.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 18.07.2017
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
