Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/345

Naveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandhu Automobiles Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Avatar adv.

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 345 of 25.05.2015

Date of Decision            :   30.11.2016 

 

Naveen Kumar Garg son of Shri Hargopal, resident of BX-XIII/265, St. No.2, G.T.B.Nagar, Handiaya Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Barnala Bye Pass Road, Raikot through its Managing Director/Manager.

2.Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office, Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana through its Managing Director.

3.Maruti Suzuki India Limited having its Head Office at 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Rajeev Goyal, Advocate

For Op1 & OP2             :         Sh.Chandan Kaushal, Advocate

For OP3                         :         Sh.Sham Lal Ghai, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant was having a Maruti Alto car bearing registration No.PB-19-A-8118 of model 2006 and he in exchange of that purchased Swift car bearing chassis No.662123 from OP1. Even insurance of Swift car got issued from Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company. Before purchase, representative of OP1 Mr.Varinder Singh disclosed to the complainant that OP1 will make necessary arrangements for obtaining loan of Rs.5 lac for the purchase of Swift car valued at Rs.6,41,000/-. OP1  also promised to provide accessories such as body cover, seat covers, mats, tool        kit etc. Best services were offered to be provided. Complainant called upon OP1 to hand over the documents of the Swift car after getting delivery of the same on 29.5.2014 because he(complainant) was to get fancy registration number from the Registering Authority. OP1 asked the complainant that after the sanction of loan, the necessary documentation and the receipts with regard to the payments along with the accessories will be delivered/handed over to the complainant. After wait for long time, the complainant in the first week of July, 2014 approached OP1 for getting the requisite documents, but OP1 expressed inability to get loan sanctioned and requested the complainant to arrange for payments. Thereafter, the complainant approached State Bank of Patiala, DAC Branch, Barnala for sanction of the loan and on his request and on completion of the requisite documents, State Bank of Patiala, DAC Branch, Barnala sanctioned loan of Rs.5 lac to the complainant. OP1issued a receipt of Rs.1,41,000/- on 11.7.2014 in favour of the complainant with understanding that balance amount of Rs.5 lac will be received by OP1 through demand draft dated 12.7.2014 drawn at State Bank of Patiala, DAV Branch, Barnala. Again on 12.7.2014, the complainant called upon OP1 and OP2 to hand over the invoice as well as sale certificate and other necessary documents as well as accessories, but OP1 and OP2 lingered on the matter. Thereafter, despite repeated demands, OP1 and Op2 failed to hand over the requisite documents and accessories to the complainant. Again in the first week of December, 2014, the complainant approached OP1 and OP2 with the request to provide the documents and accessories, so that the complainant may get the fancy registration number of the Swift car. At that time, OP1 and OP2 called upon the complainant to procure no objection certificate from the District Transport Officer enabling OP1 and OP2 to deliver the documents. As per that demand, no objection certificate from the District Transport Officer obtained and handed over to Op1 and OP2, but despite that documents and accessories were not delivered to the complainant, despite the fact that full and final payment had been made of the purchased Swift car. Service of the said car was due in December, 2014. Head light and side mirror as well as back gear of the Swift car were having manufacturing defect and on request of the complainant to provide free service and replace these defective parts, OP1 and OP2 refused to provide free service and replace the above said defective parts. Despite repeated requests, necessary things as referred above not done by OP1 and OP2 and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to provide necessary documents, accessories and to replace the head light, side mirror and back gear or in the alternative, to refund the price amount of Rs.6,41,000/- with interest @12% per annum. Even compensation of Rs.80,000/- claimed with interest @12% per annum because the complainant had to hire other vehicles time and again, due to non availability of the necessary documents of Swift car with him, owing to fault of Ops.Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- more claimed by claiming that the vehicle has been registered at Barnala and cause of action accrued at Ludhiana because service centre of Ops is in District Ludhiana.

2.                In joint written statement filed by Op1 and OP2, it is pleaded interalia as if the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant does not disclose the cause of action; complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous; complainant has suppressed the material facts while filing this complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint because the complainant is residing at Barnala and vehicle was registered with Registering Authority at Barnala. It is claimed that the car was delivered to the complainant on 29.5.2014 and the price of Rs.1,10,000/- of the exchanged vehicle was adjusted against the price of new sold car. Remaining sale consideration amount was cleared on 12.7.2014. Complainant himself directed OP not to apply for the registration certificate of the vehicle because the complainant was to get some desirous number. Complainant delayed the payment by not depositing the outstanding amount within time. There exists no issue qua registration certificate because the complainant had already got the registration certificate of the vehicle issued from the office of Registering Authority, Barnala. There exists no defect in the vehicle and that is why, the complainant has not referred the vehicle for necessary repair of the head light, side mirror and gear box. Fact regarding purchase of Swift car in exchange of old car not denied in this written statement, but it is denied that Ops promised to provide the accessories at the time of purchase of Swift car. Only tools sent by the manufacturer along with the car were to be supplied and those were supplied to the complainant. Allegations of harassment and mental agony vehemently denied along with other allegation of the complainant. It is claimed that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the complainant is not entitled to any of the relief claimed.

3.                In separate written reply filed by OP3, it is pleaded interalia as if the complainant has no cause of action against OP3 and complainant failed to set out any case for compensation because no case of deficiency/defect on part of OP3 pointed out. OP3 sells the cars manufactured by it to authorized dealers exclusively as per provisions of Sales of Goods Act and not to any individual. Relation between OP3 and dealers is on principal to principal basis. Complainant purchased the vehicle from  OP1 and as such documents pertaining to sale of the vehicle to be provided by OP1 and not by OP3. OP3 has no role to play in supply of the documents. Complainant was handed over a brand new defect free car and he took the delivery of the same after satisfying himself about working of the same. Complainant has not explained as to what problems he faced with the head light, side mirror and back gear. Allegations regarding such problems alleged to be vague. Moreover, complainant never reported the alleged problems at the time of first two free services got done from the workshop of Ops. Other averment of the complaint denied.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and that of Sh.Anil Bharti @ Soni Ex.C2 as well as documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C17 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA1 of Sh.Ajaypal Singh Sandhu, Partner of OP1 along with documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Counsel for OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Ashit Koul, TSM of OP3 along with documents Ex.R3/A to Ex.Ex.R3/F and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                Written arguments submitted by the complainant as well as by OP1 and OP2, but not by OP3. Oral arguments of counsel for parties heard and records gone through minutely.

8.                 From the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents of invoice Ex.C3=Ex.RA1/1; sale letter Ex.C4; receipt Ex.C5, counter foil receipt issued by the State Bank of Patiala Ex.C12; copy of demand draft Ex.C15; copy of letter sent by State Bank of Patiala to OP1 Ex.C16; copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C17 and copy of statement of account of OP1 concern Ex.RA1/3, it is made proved that the complainant purchased a new Swift car from OP1 and OP2 on payment of Rs.6,41,000/-, out of which Rs.1,41,000/- was the price of exchanged old car, but balance amount of Rs.5 lac paid through demand draft of 12.7.2014.

9.                Grievance of the complainant is that he has not been supplied with the promised accessories and the documents essential for running the purchased car on roads. Name of sought documents not mentioned in the complaint, but it is mentioned in para no.8 of complaint that the vehicle has been registered at Barnala. Same fact even pleaded by OP1 and OP2 in their written statement in para no.2 under head “preliminary objections”. Counsel for the complainant even during course of arguments has not denied about getting of the registration certificate of the car in question issued. One can get the registration certificate issued only after producing sale certificate, Form No.21, Form No.22, insurance certificate, proof of address and roadworthiness certificate etc. It is so because Rule 47 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that an application for registration of the motor vehicles shall be  made in Form No.20 to the registering authority within a period of 7 days from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, excluding the period of journey and shall be accompanied by:-

a)Sale certificate in Form No.21

b)Valid insurance certificate

c)Copy of the proceedings of the State Transport Authority or Transport Commissioner or such other authorities as may be prescribed by the State Government for the purpose of approval of the design in the case of a trailer or a semi trailer

d)Original sale certificate from the concerned authorities in Form 21 in the case of ex-army vehicles

e)Proof of address by way of any one of the documents referred to in Rule 4

f)Temporary registration, if any

g)Road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers.[Form 22A from the body builders]

h)Custom’s clearance certificate in the case of imported vehicles along with the license and bond, if any.

Provided that in the case of imported vehicles other than those imported under the Baggage Rules, 1998, the procedure followed by the registering authority shall be same as those procedure followed for registering of vehicles manufactured in India, and;

i)Appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81.

10.              Rule 42 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that no holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent. So, in case, no objection certificate from the concerned District Transport Officer/Registering Authority sought by OP1 and OP2 from the complainant, then the same was done for getting compliance of the Rule 42 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 done. As it is the claim of the complainant himself that he at his own got the registration certificate of the purchased vehicle issued from the Motor Vehicles Registration Authority at Barnala and as such, in view of Rule 47 (ibid), it is obvious that this registration certificate would have been obtained only on production of sale certificate in Form No.21, valid insurance certificate, original sale certificate from the concerned authorities in form No.21, proof of address, temporary registration, if any; roadworthiness certificate as well as on payment of appropriate fee specified in Rule 81 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In view of this legal requirement of Rule 47 of above quoted rules and in view of the fact that the complainant got the fancy registration number as per his desire from the District Transport Officer at Barnala, it is obvious that necessary documents consisting of sale certificate and insurance certificate etc., actually was given by OP1 and OP2 to the complainant and that is why, he was able to get the vehicle registered with the District Transport Officer, Barnala. So, story put forth regarding non delivery of the necessary documents is absolutely incorrect, being not corroborated by the legal proposition referred above.

11.              Copy of insurance certificate of the car in question produced on record as Ex.RA1/2 and as such, it is obvious that the car in question was got duly insured in the name of the complainant for the period w.e.f.29.5.2014 to midnight of 28.5.2015 with Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company. Plea taken in the written statement by Ops in this regard as such is absolutely correct.

12.              Perusal of vehicle history Ex.RA1/4 establishes that first free service of the purchased vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10-EPT-2251 got done by the complainant from OP1 and OP2 on 30.6.2014 without payment of any charges, but second free service got done on 15.10.2014 without payment of any charges, whereas the running repair got carried on 7.11.2015 without payment of any charges. During first and second free services,no defects were pointed out in the head light, side mirror and back gear and as such, claim of the complainant not believable that there was manufacturing defect qua these problems in the purchased car. Had there been any manufacturing defect in these parts of head light, side mirror and back gear, then those defects would have developed and surfaced during first or second free services,       but those were not pointed out and that is why mention of the same not made in the vehicle history against dates on 30.6.2014 and 15.10.2014. However, problem of noise from the suspension was pointed out during running repair carried out on 7.11.2015, free of costs, is a fact borne from the contents of Ex.RA1/4 itself. So, the problem of noise from suspension was reported by the complainant to OP1 and OP2 only on 07.11.2015 and not before that. No report of expert produced to show the pointed out manufacturing defect and as such, the complainant failed to prove the alleged manufacturing defect.

13.              Copy of job order slip Ex.C10 and Job card retail invoice Ex.C11 produced by the complainant itself establishes that the complainant refused performance of the works and even refused to get the paid service done on 7.11.2015, when the vehicle carried for running repair. Same facts even reflected in Ex.RA1/4 against date 7.11.2015 of running repair. In view of this, submissions advanced by counsel for OP1 and OP2 certainly has force that actually the complainant himself refused to get the works got done qua the problems of gear noise or of lights or of the blade or of the break light sometime glow or of light focusing which are the problems mentioned in job order slip Ex.C10. Perusal of job order slip Ex.R3/B of 30.6.2014 shows that the vehicle brought by the complainant for general check up and first free service was done without charging anything. Copy of job card Ex.R3/C in this respect has been produced. Besides, copy of job order slip dated 15.10.2014 Ex.R3/D and job card Ex.R3/E establishes that second free done on these dates without charging anything, but by adjusting the mud flap. However, in Ex.R3/D, it is mentioned that customer refused W.A.+ W.B and as such, it is obvious that the complainant himself refused to get the due job done on two occasions. Rather, Ops provided two free services and as such, claim of the complainant is not at all believable that there was some manufacturing defects in the head light, side mirror and back gear of the purchased car.

14.              Though, it is claim of the complainant that agreed accessories not delivered, but no estimate or document produced to show as to what accessories were agreed to be supplied and in absence of proving the same, it has to be held that claim of OP1 and OP2 is believable that tools were only the accessories, which were to be supplied and those in fact were supplied to the complainant. In view of all this, complaint of the complainant is held to the filed by suppressing the material facts and as such, same deserves to be dismissed.

15.              Complaint against OP3 certainly is not maintainable because OP3 is a manufacturer, who is not to provide the necessary documents or the alleged accessories because contract in that respect was between the complainant and OP1 and OP2 only. So, complaint against OP3 is not maintainable because there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP3 qua the grievances of            complainant mentioned in the complaint.

16.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

17.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:30.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.