Delhi

North East

CC/349/2015

Amit Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajeev Raj Bajaj - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2018

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 349/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Amit Kumar S/o Late Rohtash Kumar R/o D-367, Gokalpuri, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.       3.	Rajiv Raj Bajaj A6, 100 Ft Road Shahdara, Delhi-110094.   Deepak Auto Workshop C-5, Swami Dayanand Marg, Kanti Nagar- Delhi-110051.   Bajaj Company Office –B.60/61 Narayana Industrial Area, Phase II New Delh-110028.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

21.09.2015 23.10.2018 25.10.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased Bajaj 150 CC Pulsar- Midnight Black color Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5SBV3223, Chassis No. MD2A11CZ6DCA05156, Engine No. DHZCDA95319 manufactured by OP3 from OP2 sub dealer of OP1 on 21.02.2014 for which the invoice no. 136341 dated 24.02.2014 was issued by OP1 for a sum of Rs. 76,262/- with balance due 28,871/-. The complainant paid Rs. 46,000/- in cash vide receipt no. 1416 on 20.02.2014, Rs. 3,000/- in cash vide receipt no. 1417 on 21.02.2014, Rs. 3,000/- vide cheque no. 014286 and 12 monthly installments of Rs. 2,500/- each payable to Bajaj Auto Finance for Loan taken vide agreement no. L2WDEL02944770 thereby totaling Rs. 82,000/- with assurance by OP that he was being given 2014 manufactured bike. However, the complainant was shocked to discover that the OPs had sold a 2013 manufactured bike on receiving the Registration certificate of the said bike dated March 2014 on 02.11.2014 in which the manufacturing date of the said bike was mentioned as April 2013 i.e. 11 months old. The complainant has submitted that whenever the complainant visited the showroom of the OP1 and OP2 for the RC, the OPs would dilly dally the same on some pretext or the other and it was only at the time of 3^rd free service after 9 months of purchase that OP2 handed over the RC to the complainant in which interim period the subject bike was giving gear, handle lock, front shocker and clutch plate issues but the OPs despite complaints raised by the complainant did not address the issue of having sold and old manufactured motorcycle. The complainant had even stopped the last three installments of the payments of the bike and had sent e-mail dated 06.01.2015 to customer service of OP3 and legal notice dated 20.01.2015 through his counsel on the OPs calling upon them to either replace the subject bike with a February 2014 or refund the differential value of two models as on date of sale etc. Further the complainant has stated that being harassed with the said bike, he had visited one of the showroom of OP3 to take a quotation of its sale price and was informed firstly that the said bike would fetch between 45,000/- to 50,000/-. However on seeing the RC showing 2013 model, the quotation was brought down to 30,000/- to 35,000/- maximum. Therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint for appropriate directions against the OPs and prayed for refund  Rs. 82,000/- towards the amount of the motorcycle, Rs. 13,000/- for mental harassment, Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation charges or in the alternate a new motorcycle of a latest model.

Complainant has attached copy of RC bearing registration no. DL5SBV3223, copies of specimen RCs, copy of invoice no. 136341 dated 24.02.2014 for purchase of motorcycle, copy of motor vehicle insurance cover note with United India Insurance co. ltd dated 21.02.2014 for a premium paid of Rs. 1636/-, copy of cash receipt no. 1416 for a sum of Rs. 46,000/- on 20.02.2014, copy of cash receipt no. 1417 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 21.02.2014, copy of e-mails dated 06.01.2015 to customer service of OP3, copy of passbook entries of payments made towards the said bike by the complainant from account with Central Bank of India Gokalpuri Branch, Delhi, copy of service report sheets dated 09.03.2014, 22.05.2014 and 13.12.2014, copy of warranty certificate an scope and limit of warranty, copy of letter dated 27.03.2015 by Bajaj Auto Finance to complainant for loan settlement, copy of letter dated 18.04.2015 by Bajaj Finance to registration authority intimating termination of contract attaching NOC dated 18.04.2015 issued in favour of the complainant and Form No.35 dated 18.04.2015, copy of record slip, copy of legal notice dated 20.01.2015 with postal receipts issued to the OPs by the counsel of the complainant.

2. Notice was issued to OPs on 13.10.2015 and written statement was filed on behalf of the OPs on 16.12.2015 in which the OPs took the preliminary defence while denying having sold an old vehicle to the complainant that the model of the vehicle is ascertained by the year of registration and not by the year of manufacture and that the complainant had selected the said vehicle after thorough checkup and test drive and having been explained all features and functions of the bike. Further the OPs took the defence that there was no delay in providing RC of the vehicle and the same was provided to the complainant as soon as it was received from the Transport Department but the complainant instead chose to pick up the same as per his own choice. Lastly OPs urged that the vehicle resale had nothing to do with its manufacturing date and the same is dependent on the year of registration and maintenance of the vehicle.
3. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken by the OPs in which the complainant submitted that the OPs despite having taking payment of Rs. 52,000/- from the complainant sold the subject bike without allowing any test drive or checkup or apprising him of the features thereof. Further the complainant submitted that the model of the vehicle is determined by its date of manufacture which actually was also the information given by one of the dealers of OP3 for value assessment of the vehicle which in the present case had drastically fallen to 30,000/- to 35,000/- due to 2013 manufacturing date on the RC. Further complainant submitted that the OPs delivered the RC of the subject vehicle after delay of nine months whereas ordinarily the same takes one month.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant in which the complainant deposed that the OPs sold the subject vehicle without disclosing the manufacturing year thereof to the complainant which only stood confirmed from the RC issued in respect thereto which invariably contains the model / manufacturing year of the vehicle as 2013 to not require any further corroboration that t subject vehicle was manufactured in 2013. Further the complainant submitted that the OPs deliberately delayed in applying the RC of the vehicle and the delay was not on the part of Transport Department which had registered the said vehicle on 10.03.2014 itself but the OPs handed over the RC on 02.11.2014. The complainant further submitted that he had paid all the EMIs with regard to the loan taken from Bajaj Finance by March 2015 and was issued NOC on 18.04.2015. Lastly the complainant urged that in view of established fact of auto market that the older the vehicle the lesser its resale value, the OPs have deprived the complainant of his fundamental / legal right to get the actual item for which he was paying which act of OPs is cheating and fraud causing complainant mental agony liable to be compensated.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the OPs in reiteration of defence taken in the written statement.
6. Written arguments were filed by both the parties. The complainant argued that in view of the OPs having sold an old manufacturing vehicle and delayed submission of RC, they have indulged in unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and prayed for refund of the entire amount paid towards the said vehicle alongwith penalty and interest thereon.

Per contra the OPs contended that the date of registration of vehicle had nothing to do with its manufacturing year since the model of the year is ascertained by the year of registration and not by year of manufacturing. Further OPs argued that there was no delay in providing RC of the vehicle to the complainant as soon as it was received from the Transport Department and the vehicle resale had no connection with its manufacturing date since it was linked with the date of registration.

7.  We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and have examined the records placed before us and have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the counsels.

It is not in dispute or denial even by the OPs anywhere in its written statement or evidence or written arguments that the subject bike in question was sold to the complainant in February 2014 but was of April 2013 make i.e. manufacturing date. Further the OPs have not placed on record any documentary evidence to reason/ justify the delay or to negate the allegation leveled by the complainant of having provided the RC of the subject vehicle after a delay of nine months from the date of purchase. We do not find force in the lame contention of the OPs that the model of the vehicle is ascertained by year of registration and not by year of manufacture for the simple reason that had that been the case the RC would not contain separate entries of registration date and manufacturing date endorsed thereon meaning thereby that both are independent and significant in their own respects to determine the value / resale value of the vehicle. The Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Hind Motor (I) Ltd vs Lakhbir Singh passed in Revision Petition No. 2790 of 2008 and 4345 of 2008 decided on 02.12.2013 had dealt with a similar case of Hind Motors having sold a July 2005 manufactured vehicle to the complainant in January 2006 in which the complainant had alleged the manufacturing defects apart from having been sold an old vehicle. The District Forum had directed Tata Motors to deliver a new defect free car to the complainant alongwith interest and other damages and the appeal against this order before Hon’ble State Commission was dismissed on grounds that Tata Motors was not having fair dealing with its customers and taken contradictory and false pleas in their pleadings proving their malafide intention. Therefore Tata Motors have filed Revision Petition before Hon’ble National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission while observing that as per averments made in the complaint, the manufacturing date of the vehicle was mentioned as July 2005 but was sold and delivered to the complainant in January 2006 meaning thereby that the old as well as used vehicle was sold and no specific denial of this averment of complainant came forth from the petitioner /OP, held that this act of petitioner / OP in selling the vehicle which was manufactured in year 2005, in the year 2006, without disclosing the date of manufacture to the complainant certainly amounts to unfair trade practice. Therefore the Hon’ble National Commission upheld the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission Punjab and dismissed the Revision Petitions.

The Hon’ble Delhi SCDCR in the judgment of Sanmati Motors (P) Ltd Vs Chandrasekhar 2006 (I) CLT 250 held that when an old vehicle was sold by representing it as a new vehicle there cannot be any worse kind of unfair trade practice then selling the old vehicle representing it as a new one.

8. In light of the settled proposition of law held by Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Delhi SCDRC and applying the same to the present case in hand also in the light of the subsequent repairs the subject bike had to undergo, we hold the OPs guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and direct all the OPs jointly and severally to refund the cost of the bike i.e. Rs. 82,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.  We further direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  

      

9.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on 25.10.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member