Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/475/2022

Vinay - Complainant(s)

Versus

Satish Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/475/2022
Date of Institution	:	28.4.2022
Date of Decision	:	30/8/2024

 

Vinay, Age-40 Years, S/o Sh. Ajit Masih R/o H.No.- 24, Model Town, Bhabhat, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. Presently residing at H.No.- 802, Jattan Wala Mohalla, Manimajra Chandigarh.

COMPLAINANT

Versus

 

Satish Kumar S/o Sh. W.C. Malhotra Resident of House No. 588, Sector 11, Panchkula. Working with Fair Car Deal H.No.-3136, Sector 20, Chandigarh.

 

..Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Singh Parmar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that in the year 2021 the complainant went to Car Bazar Manimajra Chandigarh alongwith family  members in order to purchase a car, where he met Sh. Satish Kumar i.e. the OP  and at that time the OP had  shown a skoda Rapid car,  make 2012, Diesel variant car (hereinafter referred to be as subject car) and at that time the complainant  enquired  from the OP about  defect or problem in the car if any but the OP  confidently responded that there is no defect in the car. At that time the OP had also informed the complainant about the loan facility on old cars and assured that the loan would be easily facilitated.   The price of the car was negotiated at Rs.3,11,000/- in addition to charges of Rs.9,000/- as Commission of sale and Rs.3500/- for address charges and Rs.5000/-  as transfer charges  as a result of which the  total amount was settled to the tune of Rs.3,28,500/-. The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- as token money and receipt Annexure C-3 was also issued.  The complainant asked the OP that he wanted to get the car checked from a car mechanic before the purchase but the OP had given gurantee for 6 months and assured that there is no problem in the car. It was informed to the complainant by the OP  that the car would be handed over to him when the entire sale consideration will be paid to the owner of the car..  The complainant also availed loan of Rs.1,55,000/- from AU Finance  which was paid to OP  and thereafter the OP asked to make payment of balance amount of Rs.1,40,000/-   and on 3.12.2021 the complainant after making full payment took the delivery of the car  with odometer reading 83000 Kms. It is  further averred that the complainant is paying monthly installments of Rs.6100/-  on the loan amount. The receipt of payment of Rs.1,40,000/- and loan account statement are annexed as Annexure C-4 and C-5 and delivery receipt is annexed as Annexure C-6.  On the very next day of delivery i.e. on 4.12.2021  when the complainant started the car there was white smoke from the exhaust of car in huge quantity. The complainant made call to the OP and told him about the said defect but the OP said that as it is a diesel car  the problem comes only at the time of starting  and thereafter there will be no such problem. However, the said problem remained in the subject car. The complainant was under tension  due to the defect in the subject car and the car was taken to OP and thereafter the OP  was requested to give affidavit  which was required for the transfer of the car but the same was  also not given. Thereafter  the complainant had  taken the car to car mechanic at Manimajra motor market  where it was found that there was defect in the centre locking system of the car and white smoke was coming out of the silencer. The complainant got the subject car serviced from  one Deepak  Mechanic at Manimajra  but the problem could not be solved. Thereafter the OP asked the complainant to bring the car on 20.2.2022 at Dhiman Car Repair Manimajra motor market and accordingly the complainant took the car to the said repair centre, where it was declared that the engine of the car was blowing badly so there would be work of engine. It is alleged that after 8 days when the complainant  went to collect the car he came to know  that Deepak   was the same mechanic who earlier serviced the subject car  and was a friend of the OP and he asked the complainant to pay Rs.20,000/-  for the repair of the car but when the complainant asked the said mechanic  Deepak how he had done engine work he could not reply. Thereafter the OP discussed the matter with some other mechanic  about the repair work who told the complainant that  the engine work cannot be done  only for an amount of Rs.20,000/-  which itself shows that the Deepak mechanic had not done anything in the car and has wrongly asked the complainant to pay Rs.20,000/- . As the complainant was in need of the subject car, he got the said car checked from Skoda Service Centre, Industrial Area Panchkula  and  it was informed that in fact there was problem of odometer tampering and the last service of car was got done from there on 24.1.2020 with meter reading of 1,22,933 km. whereas at  the time of purchase the car, the meter reading was 83000 km.  which clearly shows unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, who firstly tampered with the odometer  by changing the reading and thereafter sold the subject car to the complainant. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OPs  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 21.6.2023.
2. In order to prove his claim the complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that the complainant purchased the subject car from the OP  for a sum of total sum of Rs.3,11,000/- which was delivered by the OP to the complainant on 3.12.2021 as is evident from Annexure C-6  and for paying the aforesaid price of the subject car, the complainant also availed loan from AU  Finance  as is also evident from Annexure C-4  the loan statement and on the very next day of the purchase of the subject car,  it started giving problem in the engine as well as in the centre locking system and when the complainant  got the same checked from the different mechanic and  finally from Skoda Service centre  it was unearthed that in fact the OP had tampered with the odometer reading, and also when the complainant further got the subject car checked from Go Mech” who after checking the subject car reported that the engine needs to be overhauled and turbocharger needs to be replaced  as is evident from Annexure C-11, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
   2. As per case of the complainant  on the assurance of the OP that the subject car is defect free and  there will be  6 months guarantee for the subject car, purchased the same from the OP for  total sale consideration of Rs.3,11,000/-. 
   3.  From the perusal of Annexure C-3 the earnest money receipt it is evident that the complainant had paid Rs.20,000/- as earnest money towards the purchase of the subject car. Perusal of Annexure C-4 indicates that the complainant paid Rs.2020/-  as transfer fee. The complainant has also paid Rs.1,55,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/-  to the OP as is evident from receipt Annexure C-6 towards the sale consideration of the subject car.  It is also evident from Annexure C-6 that  Commission @3% was required to be  paid for the deal and complainant in para No.3 of the complaint stated that he paid Rs.9000/- for the said deal. Meaning thereby  the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.3,26,020/- to the OP.
   4. Now the core issue involved in the instant case is that of the OP had sold a defective car to the complainant  as has been alleged by the complainant.  As per complainant  the OP prior to sale of the subject car had given assurances that the subject car is having no defect and  also gave 6 months gurantee.  However, despite of that even on the very next day the  subject car started giving problem of white smoke as is evident from Annexure C-9 to C-10 the communications between the parties and   there was also problem of central locking as well as in the engine which fact further stands corroborated by Annexure C-11 the report of Go Mechanic the engine of the car was required to be overhauled and turbocharger needs to be replaced. Even when the complainant took the car to the Skoda Service Centre, it was revealed that in fact the odometer reading of the subject car has been tampered by the OP.  The aforesaid allegations of the complainant are proved on record with duly sworn affidavit of the complainant.   Hence, as it is proved on record that the OP had tampered the odometer reading of the subject car and also sold a defective car to the complainant after receiving a huge amount from him, hence, it is safe to hold that the OP is indulged in unfair trade practice  especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP. Accordingly, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed and the OP is liable to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-
   1. to refund ₹.3,26,020/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint till  onwards
   2. to pay ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
   3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
5. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. The complainant shall return the car in question to the OP and shall complete all the documentary process if required, and the OP shall collect the same at his own risk and cost.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 30/08/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member