Delhi

East Delhi

CC/818/2015

PROMOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHEKHAWATI ELEC. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2018

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                       Consumer complaint no.   818/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution          19/10/2015

                                                                                                        Order reserved                06/07/2018

                                                                                                        Date of Order                   09/07/2018               

In matter of

Pramod Mittal, adult

s/o Sh Kishan Chand Mittal     

R/o- B-34, Block B, Anand Vihar delhi 110092 ..…………..…………….Complainant                                                                   

                                                                            

                                                                              Vs

M/s  Shekhavati Electronics Pvt Ltd.

(Dealer of Zedex Nissan Car)

Plot no.  89, FIE,

Patpargunj, Delhi 110092 …………………………………………………………….Opponent    

 

Quorum ……………… Sh Sukhdev Singh        President

                                   Dr P N Tiwari                Member

                                   Mrs. Harpreet Kaur     Member                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member  

Brief--This complaint had been filed for the deficiency in services u/s 2(1)(f) and 2(1)(g) and r/w sec. 2(1)(r) of OP for non supply of all 5 alloy (rim)wheels as per the specification  and adopted unfair trade practice.   

Facts of the case - Complainant purchased NISSAN Sunny XV petrol car white coloured for a sum of Rs 6,45,064/-(Ex CW1/1) on 28/06/2015 vide invoice no. VSLA 15000159 after getting satisfied pamphlet of OP stating maximum specification in this car. The said car had chassis no. MDHBBAN17E1016240 and Engine no. 751294C.

It had been stated that complainant paid a sum of Rs 1,59,936/- for RTO registration, Insurance and other misc. charges on 29/06/2015 (Ex CW1//2) and car was registered with RTO (Ex CW1/3) after car was insured by the Future Generali India vide cover note no. E7969103 having IDV Rs 8,15,671/-on 28/06/2015 of 2014 as manufacturing year instead of 2015 (Ex CW1/4).  

It was stated that OP had assured for all original accessories as per the company’s pamphlet, but after seeing the literature given by OP it was noticed that the stepny tyre was of steal rim and 4 fitted tyres were of alloy rim wheels. Also seeing insurance cover note, year of manufacturing written as 2014 and insurance cover note date was 24/06/2015 whereas complainant had purchased his car of 2015 model on 28/06/2015, so complainant immediately brought in the notice of OP regarding these shortcomings which were not attended by OP.

Complainant stated that all 5 tyres, as per the pamphlets (Ex CW1/6A to 6D) all five tyres were of 15*5J alloy of 185/65 R15 specification. OP told that wheels were manufactured by “Nishan Motor’s India Pvt. Ltd.” and grievances would be resolved as soon as OP would get response besides Insurance rectification would also be done. Despite of repeated calling and personal visit to OP and car Insurance office, complainant neither got reply till the filing of this complaint nor was rectification done. After lots of humiliation, complainant lodged complaint claimed replacement of fifth wheel of steal rim as per pamphlet (Ex CW1/6D) with compensation of Rs one lacs for selling old model car (2014) by adopting unfair trade practice.

OP submitted written statement and denied all the contents and allegations of complainant. It was submitted that their all cars were thoroughly inspected by expert team of technician before the delivery of car to their customers and without inspection and customer’s satisfaction, cars were not delivered. OP admitted that pamphlet was supplied by the manufacturer and contains all the specifications, terms and conditions. Hence, there was no deficiency in services. As per specifications spare wheel was given to the complainant. So, this complaint may be dismissed. 

OP also submitted no cause of action arisen against them as OP had written correct year of manufacturing (2014), but it was the mistake of RTO who mentioned wrong year of manufacturing. Rather complainant had chosen 2014 model and the same was entered in the insurance cover note. It was also stated that OP had not mentioned manufacturing year against the model of the car in the debit note. It was also stated that stepney was supplied as per the specification provided by the manufacturing co.  Hence OP admitted all the points printed in the pamphlet supplied to the complainant which was on record.  

 

OP also submitted one annexure (Ex OPW1/1) dated 30/11/2015 which stated that the said car Sunny XV model with 4 regular alloy wheels and 1 non alloy spare wheel for emergency purpose. Hence neither deficiency nor unfair trade practice was against OP.

 

Rejoinder to written statement was submitted and denied all the replies submitted by OP as no pamphlet was ever given. Complainant denied all explanations narrated by OP and submitted his evidences on affidavit and reaffirmed on oath that all the contents and evidences were correct from Ex CW1/1 to 6D as true and were on record. OP had intentionally denied true fact to escape from liability due to deficiency and unfair trade practice on their services. Complainant filed additional evidence showing evidence of Maruti Swift Dzire car which were denied by OP as additional evidence submitted by the complainant had no role with OP.

 

OP filed their evidences on affidavit through Mr Arun Sharma as Authorised Representative to OP and stated on oath that OP had done their all the services as per the terms and conditions of the manufacturing co. which was not made a necessary party. All the facts and evidences were correct and were on record. 

 

Arguments were heard from both party’s Ld counsels and after perusal of facts and records order was reserved.

We have perused all the facts and evidences on record. It was noted that complainant took car from OP as per the specifications shown in the pamphlets. It was noticed from Ex CW1/1 that OP issued new vehicle sales invoice for Rs 645064/- on dated 28/06/2015 in ref to Ex CW1/6A to 6D for NISSAN SUNNY XV petrol, whereas Debit note dated 29/06/2015 shows model as XVP. After seeing RTO registration slip Ex CW1/3 showed 2015 year of manufacturing for complainant’s care bearing registration no. DL1CT4127 and total sale amount Rs 858602/-.

It was also seen from the Insurance Cover Ex CW1/4 that the amount shown was Rs 815671/ as IDV as on date 28/06/2015.

 

Hence it was noted that OP had mentioned wrong amount as Rs 6,45,064/-(Ex CW1/1). As far as manufacturing of vehicle Nisan Sunny XV Petrol car was concerned, the year of manufacturing shown as 2014. If a look is made to insurance cover, it is noticed that year of manufacturing of vehicle has been shown as 2014, however registration certificate issued by the State Transport Department “Manufacturing year” has been shown as 2015, The fact that registration certificate shows that year of manufacturing as 2015, the year mentioned in the insurance cover as 2014 cannot be taken as the year of manufacture of the car.

Even the insurance company has not been impleaded as one of the party who could have explained as to the mentioning of year of manufacture as 2014 instead of 2015. The complainant would had impleaded insurance company to fortify its stand as to the year of manufacture. Therefore, arguments advanced on behalf of complainant that by selling the vehicle by making false statement of year of manufacture, OP have adpted unfair trade practice cannot be accepted.  

Taking merits and evidences on record, we come to the conclusion that complainant has established the deficiency on the part of OP besides unfair trade practice on the behalf of OP by not supplying all five wheels of Alloy as per specification. So complainant has succeeded in proving unfair trade practice of OP besides deficiency in services too which deserves to allow this complaint.

We pass the following order-

1. OP is directed to replace steal wheel to Alloy make wheel as per specifications within 30 days from receiving of this order.
2. OP is further directed to pay compensation Rs 20,000/- for their deficiency in services not obeying manufacturing company’s pamphlet. This will include litigation charges also within stipulated time.  
3. If OP (dealer) failed to comply the order, complainant shall be constraint to recover entire awarded amount with 9% interest till realized from the date of filing of this complaint.

 

 

The copy of order be sent to the parties as per section 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) free of cost with the date of dispatch and file be consigned to Record Room under section 20(1) of the CPR.  

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari-Member                                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur -Member                                                                     

                                                           Sukhdev Singh – President