Delhi

North East

CC/309/2016

SMT. GEETA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJINDRA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 2017

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. 309/16

In the matter of:

 

		Smt Geeta W/o Late Sh. Lala R/o 34, Gali No.2 Chandu Park, Jagatpuri Delhi-110051.		Complainant
		Versus
	1.           2.	M/s Rajindra Motors 467-83, GT Road Opp. Dilshad Garden Metro Station Delhi-110095. (Through its principal Officer)   The Transport Department GNCTD, 5/9 under Hill Road Delhi-110054. (Through its Commissioner)		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		17.11.2016
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		13.11.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		20.11.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

Order by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

 

ORDER

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on 10.11.2016 she had visited the showroom of OP1 for purchase of Scooty Activa 3G. The complainant stated that OP1 showed 5-6 such Scooties costing                   Rs. 61,000/- which quoted price was Rs. 6,000/- more than the usual price of the said scooty i.e. Rs. 54,894/- because in all these scooties certain accessories were fitted by the OP1. The complainant states that OP tried its level best to convince the complainant to buy one of such scooties which was costlier by Rs. 6,000/-. However, when the complainant did not given to such coercion and after much discussion and insistence, the OP1 showed one scooty without accessories to the complainant bearing Chasis                    No. MGYJF505HGT721933, Engine No. JF50E-T-3721871 for a sum of                        Rs. 54,894/- which was the actual price of the scooty which the complainant agreed to purchase without any add on facilities accessories etc. The OP1 asked the complainant to get a demand draft made in favour of Rajindra Motors for the said amount of Rs. 54,894/- and assured the complainant that the scooty would be delivered same day after completion of paper work. The complainant immediately went to Corporation Bank Preet Vihar Branch, Delhi where she had her account and got the Demand Draft bearing No. 343672 dated 10.11.2016 for sum of Rs. 54,894/- made in favour of the OP1 and handed over the same to OP1 on the same day. Against the said demand draft, OP1 issued a cheque receipt No. 1077 dated 10.11.2016 acknowledging receipt of said payment made by the complainant. However, in a sudden unexpected turn of events the OP1 put a file cover containing Declaration and Form No. 20 under Motor Vehicle Rules in front of the complainant and asked her to sign under the head Disclaimer as well as the some Declaration and form No. 20. The contents on the said Declaration were that I (referring to complainant herein) am taking the delivery of Activa 3G which is unregistered on my own risk and I will be fully responsible for its accident, road tax, police challan and theft after taking delivery and its misuse of any kind. RAJINDRA MOTORS will not be responsible for any issue. 

The complainant submitted that when she asked for other documents such as the bill/invoice & insurance certificate from the OP, the OP revealed for the first time that the said documents cannot be issued by it.  The OP further revealed for the first time that it has another showroom situated at Babarpur and all the sale bills and insurance certificates in respect of all the vehicle sold by it are issued only by the said showroom and would be made available to the complainant after a week as a matter of practice adopted by the OP. Hearing this, the complainant was shocked and got annoyed as all these things were never told to her by the OP and thus refused to take delivery of the vehicle without a valid Bill/Invoice and Insurance cover.  The complainant also refused to sign the Disclaimer printed by the OP on its File Cover as well as Declaration and Form No.20. Arguments to some extent were exchanged between the complainant and the OP’s sales staff to the effect that the dealer cannot deliver a vehicle without issuing a valid bill/invoice, insurance cover note and temporary registration certificate of the vehicle but to no avail.  The OP kept on insisting that the complainant should take delivery of ‘Scooty’ without bill/invoice, insurance cover note and only after signing the Disclaimer printed file cover, aforesaid Declaration and Form no.20 which was clearly refused by the complainant.

In light of the aforesaid facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that the conduct of OP1 not only amounts to indulging in unfair trade practice but also deficiency in service. The complainant has further stated that OP1 has been indulging in the practice of delivering the “unregistered” and “uninsured”  vehicles to its customers without issuing on the spot valid invoice/bill and insurance certificate after getting signed the afore mentioned Declaration and Disclaimer in contravention to the rule that all the dealers in Delhi are statutorily obliged to issue all these documents to the consumers before delivering a vehicle and in no circumstances can a dealer deliver “unregistered” and “uninsured”  vehicle. No relief was sought/ prayed against OP2 except directions to make enquiry with respect to the practice of delivering “unregistered” and “uninsured” vehicle to customers by OP and complainant has prayed for the following reliefs against OP1:-

1. Pay a sum of Rs. 54,894/- towards the cost of demand draft dated 10.11.2016 paid by the complainant.
2. Compensation for mental and physical harassment to the tune of                 Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3. Litigation cost of Rs. 33,000/-.
4. Interest pendente-lite and future @15% on the above claimed heads (i) and (iii).
5. Pass an order under section 14(1) (hb) of the Act direction the OP No.1 to pay such sum to the complainant and/or to deposit such sum in the account of Legal Avoid as may be determined by this Hon’ble Forum, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers, who are not identifiable conveniently :
6. Pass an order directing the OP No.1 to discontinue the aforesaid unfair trade practice ;
7. Pass an order directing the OP No.2 to make thorough inquiry in respect of all the unregistered as well as uninsured vehicles delivered by the OP No.1 till date and take appropriate action against the OP No.1 in accordance with law ;
8. Any other order be passed as this Hon’ble Forum deems just and proper to secure the ends of justice in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

2. Notice was issued to OPs and was served on 9^th December 2016 however, none appeared on its behalf and they were accordingly proceeded against Ex-parte on 2.2.2017. 
3. Ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant. In their written arguments complainant put forth certain questions for consideration and adjudication by this forum. The relevant of them to the present case : (i) whether the OP is engaged in unfair trade practice. (ii) whether the OP is guilty on over charging. (iii) whether the present complainant is entitled for full relief of as prayed for.   
4. We have heard the ex-parte arguments addressed by the complainant and have given a thoughtful consideration and appreciation of material documents placed on record which have gone un-rebutted due to no defence put forth by the OP and therefore upheld as true and correct. The OP1 was indeed guilty of charging a price in excess of the price fixed for the said scooty. Further it has been observed that non issuance of invoice/bill, insurance cover note and temporary registration certificate at the time of delivery of vehicle is a clear case of unfair trade practice in as much as the OP1 wanted to take signature of the complainant of the disclaimer/declaration to the effect that the complainant is taken an unregistered and uninsured vehicle at her own risk and would therefore be entirely responsible for any accident theft, challan etc and OP1 would stand absolved of any responsibility. Even more shocking is the fact that despite the complainant’s refusal to take the delivery of the said scooty without bill/invoice, insurance cover note etc and refusal to sign the Declaration/Disclaimer, the OP1 has not refunded the amount of                       Rs. 54,894/- to the complainant till date.
5. We therefore, find OP1 guilty of unfair trade practice and direct the OP1           to :-

1. Refund the cost of Rs. 54,894/- the cost of scooty paid by the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
2. We also award Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation cost.

6. The OP is directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  

Lastly, to the question 3 and 4 raised by the complainant before this Forum in the written arguments with respect to relief to large number of unidentifiable consumers, this Forum guides the complainant that in such cases a class action suit under section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act may be brought by persons that may have a common grievance and have suffered injury due to such unfair trade practice being indulged in by OP1 because the oneness of the interest is akin to a common grievance against the same person. Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act facilitates the decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are having common grievance and can be filed by such person having a community of interest seeking a common relief against the same service provider. Accordingly the concerned forum in its findings under Section 14 (1)(hb) of CPA can determine a reasonable compensation towards loss or injury suffered by consumers.     

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on  20.11.2017)    

                       

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra)            Member