Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 22
Instituted on : 11.01.2019
Decided on : 12.03.2024
Narender Kumar age 37 years, s/o Manphool Singh, resident of village Raipur, Tehsil & District Jhajjar.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Renault Rohtak(A unit of Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd. ) Opp. Sector-1, 2nd Entrance, Delhi Bye Pass Road, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Aseem Autos Pvt. Ltd. 118/7KM Stone, GT Road, NH-1, Karnal-132001(Haryana).
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Ravi Indora Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he had purchased a Renault Car bearing Temporary No.99ACB2329 from the respondent no.1 in exchange offer on 13.08.2017. The value of exchanged vehicle i.e. old Santro car bearing no.HR-16G-3200 of the complainant was assessed at Rs.73000/-. Thus the complainant paid Rs.330000/- by mode of RTGS and Rs.11536/- by cash to salesman of respondent no.1. The amount of old Santro was also adjusted in the payment. At the time of purchase of above stated vehicle the employees of respondent no.1 did not issue the original bill and assured to provide the bill after a short period. After waiting sufficiently when the complainant asked for original bill then the employees of respondent no.1 prolonged the same on one pretext or another. The complainant visited to shop/firm of respondent no.1 several times but even then the respondent no.1 did not provide the original bill in regard of purchased vehicle. Complainant also served a legal notice to the opposite parties but they through their reply had flatly refused to provide the bill. Due to non-providing of original bill by the respondents, the complainant could not get register the above stated vehicle in his name till today and facing difficulties. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to provide the original bill in respect of above stated vehicle alongwith the late fee @ Rs.35/- per day from the date of purchase of vehicle till actual realisation alongwith interest @ 24% and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that it is correct to the extent that the complainant came to the respondent no.1 for purchasing the said vehicle and offered for exchange of car no.HR-16-G-3200. It is also correct that the value of exchanged car was assessed at Rs.73000/-. It is wrong and denied that the complainant made full and final payment to the respondent no.1. It is submitted the vehicle was delivered on 19.08.2017. The total price of vehicle was Rs.414000/- approx.. and value of exchanged vehicle was assessed at Rs.73000/-Initially the complainant stated that he will get the vehicle financed but later on after delivery of vehicle, he stated that he will make the payment in cash. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.330000/- on 01.11.2017 and Rs.11146/- on 06.11.2017. The payment was made after 2 months of delivery of vehicle. It is further submitted that the vehicle which was exchanged by the complainant was also got financed and the complainant assured to hand over NOC of the said vehicle to the respondents but till today NOC has not been given by the complainant. Due to non giving of NOC of said vehicle, the respondent no.1 was unable to use the vehicle and the said vehicle remained parked in the workshop of the respondent no.1 and became useless and the value of the said vehicle has become very low during this period of more than one year and as such the complainant is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.73000/- to the respondent no.1 alongwith interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from the date of delivery of vehicle i.e. 19.08.2017 and also liable to pay the parking charges. The original bill cannot be issued to the complainant because the complainant failed to hand over NOC of exchanged vehicle and the said vehicle became useless for the respondent no.1 and now the value of said vehicle has become very low and as such complainant is liable to make the payment or remaining amount alongwith interest thereon. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on dated 13.12.2019. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read as affidavit, tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and closed his evidence on 11.01.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. It is an admitted fact that an old vehicle Santro HR 16G-3200 has been handed over to the respondent no.1 under the exchange vehicle policy. It is also admitted by the complainant that value of old car was assessed as Rs.73000/- and complainant has paid an amount of Rs.330000/- through RTGS and an amount of Rs.11536/- in cash to the respondent no.1. So it is clear that total amount of Rs.341536/- has been paid in cash and through RTGS to the respondent for purchase of new vehicle i.e. KWID RXL. The final amount of Rs.11536/- has been paid on 06.11.2017. As per complainant the original bill of the car has not been given to the complainant by the respondent no.1. It is further noticed that a legal notice has been issued through the counsel of the complainant on dated 30.01.2018 and reply of the same was also given by the respondent no.1 on 19.11.2018 and the reply was also received by the complainant. An another legal notice dated 30.11.2018 was given by the respondent no.1 which is placed on record as Ex.R3 to the complainant and the postal receipt is placed on record as Ex.R4. After receiving this legal notice the complainant have not taken any action and filed the present complaint before this Commission. The main contention of the respondent official is that the complainant has not issued NOC of the previous vehicle in favour of the respondent no.1. We have minutely perused the document Ex.R5 a registration certificate of Santro Car, and this vehicle has been financed by Shri Ram Transport Pvt. Ltd.. As per our view it is the prime duty of the complainant to obtain No objection certificate from the financer and hand over the same to the respondent no.1 and also it is the prime duty of the complainant that RC of the vehicle be transferred in the name of opposite party No.1. But no action has been taken by the complainant. No NOC was given to opposite party No.1. Hence the contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1 did not mature. Meaning thereby full amount of vehicle has not been received by the opposite party No.1. Merely old Santro car was handed over by the complainant in exchange offer and the same cannot be used by the opposite party No.1. Due to which the payment against the said car was not adjusted and the full payment was not received by the opposite party no.1. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.03.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
