BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.180 of 2018

Date of Instt. 24.04.2018

Date of Decision:15.07.2022

Ruchika Vig wife of Pardeep Vig resident of 136, Ramneek Avenue, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Raga Motors Pvt. Ltd. (authorized dealer Mahindra & Mahindra)       G. T. Road, Pragpur, Jalandhar through its Director/Owner.

2.       Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder,         Mumbai 400 001, India through its MD.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       None for the Complainant.

                   Sh. V. K. Singla, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.

                   Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that earlier both OPs gave the advertisement to sell their new Mahindra XUV-500W9 and also assured to provide best of the service to the general public. On OP’s allurement, complainant decided to purchase the car Model XUV-500W9 and approached OP’s showroom at Pragpur District Jalandhar. Accordingly, complainant purchased car Model XUV-500W9 having Chassis No.J9B13381 and Engine No.J4A14231 vide Invoice dated 06.03.2018 from the OPs for the amount of Rs.15,65,089/-. After some time i.e. on 31.03.2018, the complainant approached the OP No.1 for taking the first free service. But when she got the system generated job card, she                     stunned after noticing the fact that the job card was in the name of one Karan Seth. The complainant inquired the matter and it transpired that OPs sold the old vehicle to the complainant. Not only this, they also issued two invoices. It has also come to the knowledge that OPs send the invoice regarding the car in question to the company in the name of that person. The OPs issued the invoice to complainant in the name of complainant later on. So, in this way, the complainant sold the old vehicle on the new illegal invoice. OPs already used the invoice number and car, vide which they handed over the vehicle in question to complainant for some other transaction. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered huge loss and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to change the old car with new car of the same model. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as damages on account of mental tension, harassment and agony, financial loss being suffered at the hands of the OPs and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing the true and material facts. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the parties. The answering OP has been dragged into present litigation unnecessarily. The complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint also does not contain the required ingredients. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable to the matter disputed by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be rejected. The complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint by her own acts, conduct, admissions, omissions, commissions and acquiescence. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing of the car by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the relation between the replying OP No.2 and its dealers. Dealers (in the present case, OP No.1) are authorized to purchase the vehicles manufactured by the replying OP No.2 in bulk quantities and in turn resell them to their own customers. In other words, all the transactions with dealers are on principal to principal basis and the replying OP No.2 is not aware of the ultimate customer of dealers and as such, there is no privity of contract between the replying OP No.2 and end user of the vehicle (in the present case, the complainant) as far as the subject vehicle is concerned. The OP No.2 is not responsible for any of the act, omissions or commission of its dealers because dealers are not agents of the manufactured but they are separate principal and they are separate legal entities who can sue and can be sued on their own. It is further averred that after the sale of the vehicle, the liability of the manufacturer is limited to the terms and conditions of the warranty policy. It is further averred that no cause of action arose against the replying OP, as admittedly there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the replying OP. The complainant has not approached with this Commission with clean hands and there are material misstatements on part of the complainant and the complainant has presented distorted facts, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. On Merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder not filed.

5.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20 and closed the evidence.

6.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP1/B alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-13 and closed the evidence. Counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith document Ex.R2/1 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

8.                The complainant has purchased Mahindra XUV-500W9 from the OPs for Rs.15,65,089/-. Ex.C-7 has been proved to be provisional registration certificate. Ex.C-17 has been proved the purchase bill from the OPs regarding the vehicle and Ex.C-18 is the sale certificate issued in the name Ruchika Vig. It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle after obtaining the loan from State Bank of India. The sanction letter from the State Bank of India regarding the loan of Rs.14,00,000/- for the purchase of the Mahindra XUV-500W9 has been proved as Ex.C-19. Ex.C-20 has been proved to be the copy of insurance of the vehicle i.e. Mahindra XUV-500W9 in the name of the complainant. The documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 are the delivery letters. All these documents are in the name of Ruchika Vig i.e. complainant. Ex.C-5 is the delivery challan. Ex.C-6 is the insurance, which is also in the name of the complainant. Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-13 are the receipts issued by the OP are also in the name of the complainant.

9.                The grudge of the complainant is that the OPs have sold her the old vehicle as the Ex.C-4 the address on delivery slip/place of supply has been issued in the name of Karan Seth, which clearly shows that the vehicle was old one, but this contention of the complainant is not tenable as except this document, there is not any document on the file to show that this vehicle was ever sold to Karan Seth. More so, as per the record, the complainant purchased the vehicle on 06.03.2018 having Chassis No.J9B13381 and Engine No.J4A14231, colour white, whereas the document Ex.C-4 is of 31.03.2018 i.e. after the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. Had it been before the date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant then the complainant could have been right in saying that old vehicle has been sold to her. The sanction letter given by the bank Ex.C-19 also shows that the loan has been passed and sanctioned for the purchase of new vehicle.  The insurance policy also shows that the vehicle was new and the entire record produced on record by the complainant herself shows that the date of manufacturing of this vehicle is February, 2018 i.e. on 01.02.2018, whereas the vehicle was sold on 06.03.2018, therefore it cannot said that it was an old vehicle.

10.              The defence of the OPs is that the name of the Karan Seth was mentioned in the computer inadvertently against the chassis number and engine number of the complainant and that mistake has already been rectified by the OP. The OPs have themselves admitted that the new vehicle was sold by them. In such circumstances, there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

15.07.2022                    Member                              President