MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.1 against the order, dated 15.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 643 of 2008 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed OP No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for indulging in unfair trade practice and selling an old vehicle to the complainant as brand new, which had already been used by them for demonstration purposes, Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within 30 days, failing which, it was to be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% p.a., since the filing of the complaint i.e. 9.6.2008, till realization.   

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant approached OP No.1, with a view to purchase the Mini-Truck Tata ACE, where the representative of OP No.1 explained the fanciful qualities of the vehicle and assured the best bargain and services to him. Believing the promise of OP No.1, the complainant made up his mind to purchase the vehicle, as he was unemployed and eagerly required this vehicle to earn his livelihood. The total consideration price of the vehicle was Rs.2,46,125/-, out of which, a cash discount of Rs.8,000/- was offered to the complainant. It was stated that the officials of OP No.2, prepared different quotations, out of which, it was finally agreed that a sum of Rs.2 lacs would be financed for a period of 4 years carrying interest @ 7 ½ % p.a. and the remaining amount was to be paid by the complainant, as per details in C-1/A. It was further stated that the receipt of the same was not provided by the Ops but it was admitted by them, in their statement. It was further agreed that the abovesaid sum would be repaid to OP No.2 in 47 equated installments. One installment was paid in cash, which was calculated at Rs.5417/- + Rs.493/- = Rs.5910/- i.e. in total 48 installments. It was further stated that after completing the due formalities, the complainant was asked to handover the post-dated cheques, to the Ops, on which only signatures of the complainant, were taken, and the amount and the name were allowed to be written. When the complainant raised protest, he was told that it was the procedure, which could not be changed. On due insistence, an official of OP No.1, accepted the request of the complainant, and filled two cheques in his handwriting, in favour of OP No.2. It was further stated that the complainant paid the initial consideration amount and the insurance charges for the 1^st year with other charges, as mentioned in C-1/A, as required against the invoice, attached as Annexure C-4, and got the vehicle with a temporary number, provided by the Ops alongwith insurance. The complainant approached OP No.2, with a request to provide the detailed statement of installments, paid and other processing details and its charges. The statement was contradictory, as the number of installments was shown as 47, whereas the number of cheques was shown as 45 at the bottom. Due to this reason each installment was calculated to be of Rs.6281/- whereas, it was agreed to be Rs.5910/-. The complainant pointed out the same to OP No.2, but since no response was received from OP No.2, he approached OP No.1, who also evaded his liability, on one pretext or the other, but finally returned those two cheques, which were filled by him at the time of purchase of the vehicle. It was further stated that due to this, the complainant was to bear the loss and was forced to pay the heavy installments, alongwith excessive interest which came to be approx.@ 9% p.a., whereas, it was agreed to be @ 7 ½ % p.a.. It was further stated that unfairness of the Ops, came to the knowledge of the complainant, at the time of cleaning the vehicle, when he came into the possession of the papers/documents. After going through the papers, so found, the complainant came to know, that the vehicle sold to the complainant was only meant for demonstration purpose and not for sale. The said vehicle was provided temporary number, prior to the number, which was given to the complainant alongwith insurance. It was further stated that the abovesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OP No.1, wherein, it was admitted that the complainant approached OP No.1 to purchase TATA Vehicle Model Ace (Mini Truck) and got issued performa invoice, from it. It was denied that any of the officials of OP No.1 got introduced the complainant, to the officials of OP No.2. It was further stated that the complainant himself approached OP No.2, and entered into an agreement with it. It was further stated that answering OP had nothing to do with it. It was further stated that the total price of the vehicle was calculated to be around Rs.2,59,647/- and the vehicle was sold for Rs.2,46,125/- on 30.11.2007 after giving discount of Rs.8516/-. It was denied that OP No.1 had asked the complainant to handover the post-dated cheques. It was further stated that the answering OP had nothing to do with the postdated cheques. It was also denied that the officials of OP No.1, had ever filled the cheques, in his handwriting, in favour of OP No.2. It was further stated that the loan agreement was between OP No.2, and the complainant. It was further stated that the dispute relating to the postdated cheques, and the installments related to OP No.2. It was further stated that OP No.1 deals in commercial vehicles, as it is an authorized dealer of Tata Motors. It was further stated that the OP had sold to the complainant a brand new vehicle, which was inspected by him, to his satisfaction, at the time of PDI. He duly checked the meter reading, at the time of delivery. It was further stated that there was no proof, on record, which showed that OP No.1 had sold to the complainant, the used vehicle.  All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.         Reply was filed by OP No.2, wherein, it was stated that the complainant was not a consumer, as he purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. It was further stated that the vehicle was selected by the complainant, upon his entire satisfaction. The rate of interest, as agreed to between the complainant, and OP No.2, was @ 9.15% flat .p.a. Copy of the repayment statement and amortization table showed the break up of installments. It was annexed as Annexures OP 2/2 and OP 2/3. It was further stated that all the installment cheques were collected duly filled up.  It was further stated that from the cheque numbers referred to by the complainant as Annexures C-2 and C-3, it was clearly established that these cheques were manipulated by him, to concoct a false story, as he had been paying the installments from Serial No.536526 onwards and had cleared the cheques upto Serial No. 536534. It was further stated that OP No.2 had not provided the temporary number, as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant himself was responsible for the registration of the vehicle. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of OP No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.       The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.  

7.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, appellant/OP No.1, filed the instant appeal. 

8.         We have heard Sh.Maninder Singh, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the appellant/OP No.1, Sh.Anish Babbar, Advocate, for the respondent/complainant and, have perused the record, carefully.

9.       The learned Counsel for the appellant/OP No.1 has filed an application for placing on record documents by way of additional evidence on 16.4.2011, wherein, it was stated that Annexures A-1 to A-3, which were placed on record alongwith appeal, were, however, inadvertently and, due to oversight could not be placed on record before the learned District Forum. Whereas for the adjudication of the case, these documents are necessary and it was prayed that these documents may kindly be taken on record.

10.       The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant filed reply to the application, in which, it was stated that Annexures A-1 to A-3 cannot be placed on record as additional evidence, at the appellate stage, just to fill up the gaps in evidence. Neither there is any provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to lead additional evidence nor the reasons given in the application are sufficient to allow the appellant to place the said documents.

11.       After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the abovesaid documents Annexures A-1 to A-3, be taken on record, for the just decision of the case. Therefore, we allow the application filed by the OP. 

12.       The proxy Counsel for the appellant/OP No.1, contended that the learned District Forum did not appreciate the stand taken by the appellant, that the complainant, at the time of purchase of the vehicle, had satisfied himself by physically inspecting the vehicle and, on going through the meter reading. It was further contended that the District Forum failed to consider the evidence of the complainant and erred in relying on the forged and fabricated documents of the respondent. It was further contended that the complainant filed the complaint after around 6 months from the date of purchase of the vehicle, when as per the complainant, he suddenly came across the alleged documents annexed as Annexure C-8 to C-10 with the complaint. It was further contended that relying upon the documents, Annexures C-8 to C-10, the complainant tried to build the case against the appellant, that it was using the vehicle, in question, for demonstration purpose. It was further stated that the fact remains that the appellant is having a Trade Certificate No.CH01-TC-142A issued under the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, by the Registering and Licencing Authority, UT, Chandigarh, and is valid till date in favour of the appellant, throughout India. It was further contended that the case of the complainant was completely falsified from the trade certificate, as there was no necessity, on the part of the appellant, to get these documents i.e. C-8 and C-9 when he had the Trade Certificate which is a better and authentic document, for the said purpose. It was further stated that the document C-10 was also false and fabricated, as no Company would issue the same policy to two different persons. It was further contended that there was no deficiency, in service on the part of the appellant/OP No.1.

13.       The learned Counsel for the complainant, submitted that the complainant approached OP No.1 for the purchase of Mini-Truck Tata ACE, for earning his livelihood. The cost of vehicle was Rs.2,46,125/-, out of which, a cash discount of Rs.8,000/- was offered to him. The complainant agreed that a sum of Rs.2 lacs would be got financed from OP No.2 for the period of 4 years, carrying interest    @ 7 ½ % p.a. and the remaining amount was to be paid by him. The amount of Rs. 2 lacs financed by OP No.2 was to be repaid to it in 47 equated installments and one installment was paid in cash, which was calculated as Rs.5417/- + Rs.493/- = Rs.5910/- i.e. in total 48 installments. The complainant paid the initial consideration amount, and the insurance charges for the 1^st year with other charges and he approached OP No.2, with a request to provide the detailed statement of installments. The said statement showed the contradictory view, as the number of installments, was shown as 47, whereas, the record of number of cheques was shown as 45 at the bottom. Due to this reason each installment was calculated to be @ Rs.6281/- per month, whereas, it was agreed to be @Rs.5910/-. The complainant pointed out the same to OP No.2. Thereafter OP No.1 returned those two cheques, which were filled up by him at the time of purchase of the vehicle. Due to this, the complainant was to bear a loss and he was forced to pay the heavy installments, alongwith excessive interest. It was further contended that the papers of the vehicle clearly depicted that  it was only meant for demonstration purpose and not for sale. The said vehicle was provided temporary number prior to the number, which was given to the complainant alongwith insurance. It was further contended that these facts were established from Annexures C-8 to C-10.

14.            Annexure C-8, is a copy of the certificate, issued by the authorized signatory of the appellant, showing that the vehicle, in question ws being used for demonstration purpose. C-9 is a copy of the temporary certificate of Registration, which was issued in the name of the appellant. It bears No. CH-23(T) 7491. C-10 is a copy of the cover note of insurance policy issued by the Reliance General Insurance Company, in which the engine and the chassis number of the present vehicle, are mentioned. It is evident from para 12 of the impugned order that OP No.1 produced the record relating to the temporary registration numbers, allotted by it, during the year 2008. The record was maintained, on loose leaves. The District Forum was right in coming to the conclusion, that this record was fabricated by OP No.1. Even  the learned Counsel for OP No.1 could not be able to satisfy, as to why and for what purposes the Insurance Cover Note Annexure C-10 was obtained by OP No.1, for the abovesaid vehicle from the Reliance General Insurance, if it was not used for demonstration purposes. The Counsel for OP No.1, no doubt, contended that the aforesaid temporary number was allotted to Paul Merchants, but it could not produce any record, with regard thereto. Trade Certificate (Annexure A-3) in favour of OP No.1, does not rule out the possibility that in order to ply the abovesaid vehicle, for demonstration purposes, there is no need to obtain the temporary registration certificate. Hence, in this situation, it could be safely held that the abovesaid vehicle, was being used for demonstration purposes by OP No.1, before it was sold to the complainant, on 30.11.2007, showing it to be as brand new vehicle, which tentamounts to deficiency, in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

15.            Therefore, we concur with the order passed by the learned District Forum. Hence, no interference is called for. The appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.1 is dismissed, as devoid of merit, and the order passed by the learned District Forum, is upheld.

16.       The parties are left to bear their own costs.

17.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                        

2^nd August, 2011