Haryana

StateCommission

A/346/2016

SUHAIL SYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PADAM MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

ARUNA SACHDEVA

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     346 of 2016

Date of Institution:     21.04.2016

Date of Decision :     10.06.2016

 

 Suhail Syal, House No.11, Bhogpur, Mallah Road, Pinjore, Kalka.

 

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      The Managing Director, Padam Motors Private Limited, 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.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Dinesh Rawat, Advocate for appellant.

None for respondent No.1.

Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Complainant is in appeal against the order February 10^th, 2016 dated passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) for enhancement of compensation.

2.      Suhail Syal-Complainant/appellant, purchased a car (Duster Diesel RXZ) bearing Engine No.D037349, Chassis No.MEEHSRCFNF1002971, on April 10^th, 2015 from Padam Motors Private Limited-Opposite Party No.1, dealer of Renault India Private Limited-Opposite Party No.2 (manufacturer), vide Sales Invoice (Annexure C-1).  The grievance of the complainant is that though in the invoice, the colour of the car was mentioned as ‘woodland brown’ but in the Sale Certificate it was mentioned as ‘Pearl White’. Further allegations are that the car was purchased from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2, he approached the opposite party No.1 to rectify the mistake of colour and to apologize but it did not do so. The complainant also approached the Registering Authority with which the car was got registered, to mention its colour as Pearl White. Even in the Insurance Policy, the colour was mentioned as Pearl White. The complainant has thus sought compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for mentioning wrong colour and Rs.20,000/- litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties/respondents contested complaint.  The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply stated that though in the invoice the colour was wrongly mentioned as Woodland Brown, however due to inadvertent typographical mistake in the computer during cut pasting, the colour was mentioned as Pearl White. It was further stated that learning about the mistake, the opposite party No.1 requested the complainant to hand over the Original Sale Certificate alongwith other documents to get the Certificate of Registration with correct particulars at their expenses. However, the complainant instead of cooperating by handing over the Sale Certificate and other documents, resorted to the present complaint, which was unwarranted.

4.      The Opposite Party No.2 did not contest the complaint and was proceeded exparte.

5.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint directing the opposite parties as under:-

“(i)     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.

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

6.      The only dispute between the parties is about mentioning of wrong colour in the Sale Certificate. In the Sales Invoice the colour of the car has been correctly mentioned as Woodland Brown. In the Sale Certificate Form 21, the colour has been wrongly mentioned as Pearl White. The opposite party No.1 has specifically pleaded that on learning, they approached the complainant and requested for cooperation in getting the necessary change regarding colour done from the Registering Authority at their expenses. However, the complainant did not cooperate. The Opposite Party No.1 in paragraph No.2 of the preliminary objections of its reply mentioned as under:-

“2.     ……….Even the said mistake escaped the eyes of the officials of registration authority, who had inspected the vehicle before registration of the vehicle. It was only after registration of the vehicle, the complainant detected the said mistake and thereafter approached the answering respondent with his grievance regarding wrong mentioning of the colour in the invoice. The record of the sale was checked by the officials of the answering respondent and it was found that due to typographical/cut-paste mistake in the computer, the colour of the vehicle was wrongly mentioned as pearl white. On finding the said mistake, the officials of the answering respondent requested the complainant to hand over the original registration certificate along with other required documents so that they may get the registration certificate be re-issued from the registration authority with correct particulars of colour. The complainant was conveyed that all the expenses for getting the said correction in the registration certificate shall be borne by the answering respondent. However the complainant instead of handing over the registration certificate/signing the required documents chose to get the answering respondent issued a legal notice on false facts alleging fabrication of the invoice of the vehicle. In response to the said legal notice Annexure C-4, the officials of the answering respondent approached the complainant and offer to get the registration certificate re-issued from the registration authority on their own expenses…..”

7.      The entire context shows that some bonafide mistake occurred in wrong mention of the colour in the Sales Certificate, though it was correctly mentioned in the sales invoice. The opposite party No.1 has offered even before filing of the complaint to get the mistake rectified requesting only the cooperation from the complainant. The opposite party No.1 has even offered that entire expenses required for correction would be borne by them, however. Instead of cooperation, the complainant resorted to file the present complaint.  yet, even then learned District Forum while allowing the complaint directed the opposite party No.1 to get the necessary correction done at their expenses besides directed both the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. This Commission feels that for bonafide human error, the complainant has been sufficiently compensated. Thus, no case for enhancement of compensation is made out.

8.      Hence, the appeal fails. It is dismissed.

 

Announced 10.06.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL