Haryana

Panchkula

RB18CC/173/2015

PULKIT SOOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RENAULT INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

CHHAVI

17 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	RB 2018 (CC 173 of 2015)
Date of Institution	:	06.02.2018/27.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	17.12.2018

 

Pulkit Sood S/o Sh. Rajesh Sood R/o House No.270, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1. Renault India Private Limited through its Director, A.S.V. Remana Towers, Fourth Floor, #37-38, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-500017, Tamilnadu, India.
2. Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd. 363, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula, Haryana.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Advocate for complainant. 

                        Mr. Chetan Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for OP No.2.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The present complaint was disposed of by this Forum vide its order dated 15.01.2016, which was challenged by the complainant by way of filing an Appeal No.364 of 2016 before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana. The Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 09.01.2018 while setting aside the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by this Forum, has remanded the present complaint to decide it on merit.

2.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged in the complaint are that complainant had visited OP No.2 and desired to buy the Demo Car Scala which was being used by it in order to enhance the business and for the purpose of test drive. The OP No.2 told the complainant that the said Demo Car Scala Diesel RXZ dual airbag bearing model SAEID and having engine number E021085 and having chassis no. MEEAHBA 41C9001633 has been manufactured in the year of January 2013 and the same would cost Rs.6 lac to the complainant including the VAT @ 13.13%. The OP No.2 issued the bill along with relevant details of the car after receiving the payment of Rs. 6 lac. The OP No.2 had also issued a sale certificate i.e. Form 21 issued under Rule 47 (a)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the complainant showing the year of manufacture of the said demo car. Thereafter, the complainant started using the said car but soon he realized that the said Demo Car bearing Chassis No. MEEAHBA 41C9001633 was not having certain distinct feature, which the car manufactured in the year 2013 would have possessed. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.2 and enquired from him as to whether the aforesaid Demo car was really manufactured in the year 2013 only and for that purpose he had earlier issued the Sale Certificate to the complainant and even further assured that that they could give any other document for proving the fact that the year of manufacture of the said car is of 2013 only. Thereafter, to check the manufacturing year of the said Demo car, the complainant putting the VIN/Chassis number in the VIN i.e. Vehicle Identification Number decoder he came to know that the year of manufacture of the said Demo car is of 2012 and not of 2013 as claimed by the Ops. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Ops for grant of compensation on account of such misrepresentation and also demanded for the refund of the amount from the Ops but to no avail. The Ops had issued two Form No.22 with different dates raising a serious doubt as to one of the original of the two in order to deceive the complainant; this act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

3.     The OP No.1 has filed the written statement taking preliminary objections and stated that the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP No.1 is frivolous and vexatious. The OP No.1 has maliciously been made a party to the complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole intention of causing unnecessary duress and harm to the reputation and goodwill of the OP No.1 and can make wrongful gain for himself and can cause wrongful loss to the OP No.1. It is further stated that the legal relationship between the OP No.1 and OP No.2 is of Principal to Principal basis. The said OP No.2 is the Authorized Dealer and not an Agent of OP No.1. The OP No.1 does not allocate any vehicle in support of any particular buyer at the time of billing it to the Dealer from its manufacturing unit at Chennai and the transaction of the vehicle between the Authorized Dealer and the Corporation stands completed as soon as the vehicle is handed over to the delivery service to transport it to the Authorized Dealer’s destination. Any individual purchaser does not pay the cost of the vehicle individually to the company; on the contrary every purchaser purchases the vehicle from the Authorized Dealer who has been authorized to sell the vehicle of which Nissan is the manufacturer. The OP No.1 does not accept the cost of the vehicle from any individual purchaser. The OP No.2 is the Authorized Dealer of the OP No.1 and the OP No.2 raises bills and against those bills OP No.1 being the producer of Renault cars sends vehicles to OP No.2 and that is the only association or relationship between the OP No.1 and 2. Further, the OP No.1 would not be liable for the acts of the OP No.2. The OP No.1 shall not be responsible for any acts or omissions or commissions on and on behalf of the OP No.2. Further, stated that the OP No.1 is not a necessary party to the present complaint. The complainant has purchased the vehicle from the OP No.2, who is the Authorized Dealer of the OP No.1. The relationship between the OP No.1 and the OP No.2 is based on the Principal to Principal basis and there is no Principal Agent relationship between the Ops and therefore, OP No.1 is not a necessary party to the complaint. The complainant has falsely tried to implicate the OP No.1 when they have no role to play. The OP No.1 has no role to play in the present complaint and the complainant has come to this Forum with malafide intentions and unclean hands. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

4.     The OP No.2 contested the complaint by filing its reply. It has been submitted that the present complaint has been filed with ulterior motive by concealing the material facts from this Forum. The complainant was offered a 2012 model car of the said make which was in fact test drive/demo vehicle which the OP No.2 wanted to sell. The complainant was satisfied with the running and physical appearance of the vehicle and he offered price of Rs.6 lac but the complainant asked the OP No.2 to mention the model of the said car as 2013 instead of 2012. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle by making Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.370 and Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt No.371 on 29.04.2015. Rs.4,27,000/- was received on 27.05.2015 and then invoice was issued to the complainant. The cost of the car was Rs.6,09,619/- but the complainant requested for waiting of Rs.8,000/- outstanding towards him. However, he paid Rs.3,000/- on 06.08.2015 and also promised to pay rest amount of Rs.5,000/- soon but when he did not make the payment then OP No.2 approached the complainant at his house where he got annoyed and asked that he will make the payment by visiting the OP No.2. In the last week of August, 2015 the vehicle of the complainant got badly damaged in an accident but when the official of the OP No.2 demanded balance amount then the complainant got infuriated. The repairing cost of the vehicle was Rs.55,000/- but the complainant did not want to pay and has filed the present complaint just to harass the OP No.2. The documents which the complainant has claimed to be forged have never been issued by the OP No.2 as the date of manufacturing has been shown as 2012. The complainant had purchased the said car by finding it a good deal moreover it was very much in his knowledge that the model of the car was 2012. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on behalf of OP No.2. Other pleas of the complainant have been controverted.          Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.          

5.     The counsel for the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure R1/A along with documents Annexure R-1/1 and R1/2 and closed the evidence. The Authorized representative for OP No.2 has also tendered evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A along with documents Annexure R2/1 and R2/2 and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.   

6.     We have heard both the parties and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

7.     During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts and version as contained in the complaint, affidavit Annexure CA and documents as Annexures C-1 to C-5 and contended that the OP No.2 while selling the car in question to the complainant initially represented the same to be manufactured in the year of January 2013 in place of year 2012. The ld. counsel invited the attention of this Forum towards Form No.21 (Annexure C-2) issued by the OP No.2 wherein the year of manufacturing of the said vehicle has been mentioned as January 2013. Regarding the model of the car, the ld. counsel drew our attention towards VIN decoder (Annexure C-3), which contains the model of the vehicle as 2012. The ld. counsel further invited our attention towards Form No.22 (Annexure C-4 and C-5) bearing the different dates as 23.01.2013 and 17.01.2015 in support of his contention that the OP No.2 had indulged into unfair trade practices while selling the car in question to the complainant. The ld. counsel has relied upon the order dated 02.08.2010 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in F.A No.289 of 2008, case titled as General Motors India Private Limited Vs. M/s Rajeev Sood and another,  order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in F.A. No.414 of 2013, case titled as Dynamic Motors Vs. Kulwant Bardwaj, order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in F.A. No.189 of 2014, case titled as Preety Guru Vs. Modern Automobiles, order dated 02.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in F.A. No.276 of 2004, case titled as Bhuja Singh Vs. District Transport Officer and another and order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh in F.A. No.219 of 2012, case titled as H.D.F.C. Bank Limited Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Bedi.

On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 while controverting the version of the complainant stated that there is no role of the OP No.1 in the sale of the vehicle in question to the complainant and thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.1.

The ld. counsel for the OP No.2 while controverting the version of the complainant reiterated the facts as contained in the reply, affidavit Annexure R2/A and documents Annexure R2/1 and R2/2 and contended that the complainant was offered the vehicle as manufactured in the year 2012, which was in fact test drive/demo vehicle and these facts were very well within the knowledge of the complainant and that the said vehicle was sold to the complainant at a sale consideration of Rs.6,09,619/- without any misrepresentation stating that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2012. The ld. counsel further stated that the complainant did not make the payment of outstanding amount of Rs.8,000/- and the payment of Rs.3,000/- out of balance amount of Rs.8,000/- was made on 06.08.2015 and Rs.5,000/- was still payable by the complainant towards the settled sale price of the vehicle in question. The ld. counsel vehemently argued that the vehicle got damaged on account of accident and the complainant brought the same in the premises of the OP No.2 for carrying out its repairs. The ld. counsel stated that the repairing cost of the damaged vehicle was Rs.55,000/- but the complainant was not ready to make the payment of said amount and hence, filed the present complaint on this ground. Continuing the arguments, the ld. counsel asserted that the alleged forged documents were never prepared and issued at the instance of OP No.2 and that the OP No.2 had correctly mentioned the date of manufacturing as 2012 in the sale letter, which the complainant has intentionally withheld from producing the same before this Forum. Concluding the arguments, the ld. counsel while denying the execution of alleged forged documents (Annexure C-2, C-4 and C-5) asserted that there has been no lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP No.2 and the allegations of unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant on the part of the OP No.2 are completely false, baseless and meritless.

8.     After giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of both the parties and going through the entire record available on the file, it transpires that the complainant purchased the car/vehicle bearing model SAE1D, having engine number E021085 and chassis no.MEEAHBA41C9001633 from the OP No.2 on 29.04.2015 for a sale consideration of Rs.6,09,619/-.The complainant has claimed that the OP No.2 while selling the vehicle in question had misrepresented about its year of manufacturing i.e. model of the car and in this regard has relied upon sale letter Form No.21  Annexure C-2 and  Form No.22  Annexure C-4 and C-5.

On the other hand, the OP No.2 has completely denied the contention of the complainant and has denied the execution of sale letter Form No.21 Annexure C-2 and Form No.22 Annexure C-4 and C-5. The OP No.2 has contended that the said documents i.e. Annexure C-2, C-4 and C-5 does not bear the signatures of the OP No.2. The OP No.2 has further resisted the claim of the complainant stating that the complainant has not made the payment of Rs.5,000/- out of the balance amount of Rs.8,000/-.

9.     Perusal of the case file has revealed that this Forum earlier vide its order dated 15.01.2016 had dismissed the present complaint on the ground that the OP No.2 had alleged the plea of fraud and forgery etc. Against said order, the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana in the appeal has remanded the case to this Forum for adjudication of the present complaint on its merit. The Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana has found no force in the plea of OP No.2 regarding non-execution of sale letter Form No.21 Annexure C-2 and Form No.22 Annexure C-4 and C-5. The operative part of the order passed by Hon’ble State Commission in F.A No.364 of 2016 is reproduced as under:-

“Learned District Forum dismissed complaint on the ground that when there is a plea of forgery of many documents, consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this dispute, but, none of the parties have led any evidence qua this effect. Even otherwise, it has been alleged in affidavit Ex.R-2/A by Sales Manager of opposite party No.2 (in short ‘O.P’) that complainant requested to mention the Model of car as 2013 instead of 2012, so this plea is self contradictory. Had it not been alleged by Sales Manager of O.P No.2 that date of manufacturing was mentioned as per request of complainant, then it could not have been a different matter.”

Thus, in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, the plea of OP No.2 regarding non-execution of sale letter Form No.21 Annexure C-2 and Form No.22 Annexure C-4 and C-5 by it stands negated and falsified. It would not be out of place to mention here that Form No.21 and Form No.22 are statutory forms issued by the concerned authorized Automobile Dealer under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and thus, a copy of the said forms is retained for record by the concerned authorized Automobile Dealer, who sells the vehicle to the customers. In the present case, the OP No.2 has not placed the copy of said forms to falsify the version of the complainant. It is not the case of the OP No.2 that no record of sale of vehicle is/was kept by it, hence, we find no force and substance in the version of OP No.2. Further, regarding another plea of OP No.2 about recovery of balance amount of Rs.5,000/- out of amount of Rs.8,000/- we conclude that the same is not tenable as the OP No.2 could resort to any other legal remedy for recovery of any balance amount. Even otherwise we find no documentary evidence on record regarding the recovery of said alleged amount of Rs.5,000/-. Thus, from the above narrated facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and the OP No.2 has indulged into unfair trade practices by selling the vehicle of 2012 model mentioning as 2013 model in the sale letter i.e. Form No.21 Annexure C-2; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

        We find no lapse and deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and hence, the complaint is dismissed qua OP No.1.

10.    Regarding relief, it is well settled law that a consumer is to be compensated only to the extent of actual loss suffered by him and that the principle for awarding just and reasonable compensation is based on “estitutio in integrum that is, the claimant must receive sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong”. In the present case, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for a consideration of Rs.6 lac. and keeping in view the age of vehicle as 10 years, 10% depreciation per year seems to be just, fair and reasonable. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it fair and justifiable to compensate the complainant by directing the OP No.2 to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, financial loss and litigation charges.  

11.    The OP No.2 shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP No.2.

12.    A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

17.12.2018         RUBY SHARMA      JAGMOHAN SINGH        SATPAL

                          MEMBER               MEMBER               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         SATPAL

                                         PRESIDENT