Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/150/2023

AMIT KUMAR S/O KULDEEP KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRIRAM AUTOMALL INDIA LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, PROPERITOR, AUTHORISED SIGNATORY - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

12 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/150/2023
Date of Institution	:	20.3.2023
Date of Decision	:	12/4/2024

 

Amit Kumar S/o Kuldeep Kumar, House No. 5355, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh 160101.

 

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Shriram Automall India Ltd. Zirakpur Road, NH 7, Near Gagan Chowk, Rajpura, Punjab through its Director/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

 

 2. Kanwal Jeet Singh Nagi, Shriram Automall India Ltd. Zirakpur Road, NH 7. Near Gagan Chowk, Rajpura, Punjab.

 

3. Sameer Malhotra, CEO, Shriram Automall India Limited (Samil), 7th floor, 701 & 711, Best Business park, Plot P-2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi 110034

Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for OPs.

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant  was looking for a car for his own personal use and came in the contact of OPs who sell second hand cars. The complainant on the assurances of Ops participated in the auction for purchase of the car from OPs and selected two cars for bid i.e. Verna and Maruti Vitara Breeza LDI and paid amounts of Rs.3,60,000/- and Rs.5,25,000/- respectively as an bid amount for the purchase of the cars and the complainant was to select one car out of the aforesaid car after bid.  In the auction the complainant was declared successful for the both the aforesaid cars and received text message Annexure C-6 in this regard from the OPs. The Ops given delivery of Maruti Vitara Breeza LDI diesel to the complainant on 24.1.2023 and the delivery of Verna car was not given. It is alleged that after taking delivery of the Maruti Vitara Breeza when the complainant checked its history it transpired that the OPs had sold him an accidental car and three traffic challans of Rs.2000/- were pending against the said car and in this manner the Ops are indulged in unfair trade practice. The complainant sought refund of the amount from the Ops but to no avail and even the Verna car is still  standing in the premises of the OPs. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties  in their reply stated that the complaint had participated in the auction and after the full satisfaction of the complainant, the complainant had entered into the bidding of 2 vehicles bearing registration number PB 10GT9318 Vitara Briza for a sum of Rs. 5,25,000 and HR29H1162 Hyundai Verna for a sum of Rs. 3,60,000. The complainant became the highest and most successful bidder by the Seller/Owner and accordingly the aforesaid sale amount was deposited by the complainant to the Seller/Owner and both the vehicles were sold to the Complainant. Out of one vehicle
   PB 10 GT9318 the complainant got released the same but the vehicle bearing number HR29H1162, the complaint put the same vehicle for resale/ re-auction through the answering opposite party for the disposal of the same and the answering OP had received bids from different bidders which the complainant has not confirmed and hence the vehicle has not been released to any of them nor the complainant has taken the possession of the said vehicle. It is averred that any liability like RTO tax, or traffic challan before the date of sale of the vehicle will be borne or cleared by the owner/seller/supplier and accordingly, the answering opposite party had intimated the owner/seller/supplier of both the vehicles to clear the above-said challans of both the vehicles and the owner/seller has agreed to the same also. It is averred that all the vehicles are offered on “as is where is basis” and  the buyer has to be aware before purchasing the same is based on Caveat Emptor rule.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is an admitted fact of the case that out of two purchased car the possession of Verna Car  was not given to the complainant despite of paying full amount to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- by the OPs. In our opinion the OPs cannot keep both the Verna car as well as its sale price of Rs.3,60,000/- with them and  the OPs used this amount paid by the complainant for a long time which is unjust and illegal and the OPs are liable to refund the said amount to the complainant alongwith interest.
7.  Now the next point to be considered  is that the OPs had sold Maruti Vitara Breeza, an accidental vehicle to the complainant for a sum of Rs.5,25,000/, which had undergone major repairs being accidental vehicle, as is apparent from the service record of the aforesaid car Vitara Breeza. Not only this the said vehicle  i.e. Vitara Breeza was also not encumbrance free  before selling  it to the complainant as three traffic challans are pending to be cleared till date. Thus the OPs are indulged in unfair trade practice.  
8. Pertinently, the Vitara Breeza car  was purchased  on 24.1.2023 and the present complaint has been filed on 20.3.2023  meaning thereby, the complainant had to undergo immense mental agony and physical harassment in the beginning itself  when he came to know that he had been sold an accidental vehicle  by the OPs for which he had spent a huge amount of his hard earned money.  Even the OPs had admitted that the vehicle is not encumbrance free and after filing of the present complaint the OPs have stated that they will get the challan cleared from the previous owner. Hence, the act of OPs  for selling an accidental car which was not even encumbrance free and illegally using the  amount paid by the complainant for Verna Car instead of refunding the same, amounts  to deficiency in service and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.
9. So far as the question of refund of price of Vitara Breeza car is concerned, we are of the view that the standard formula of depreciation needs to be applied to this effect for the depreciation of the vehicle as  the vehicle is being used by the complainant since last one year. Thus the following standard car depreciation curve is required to be applied.

 

Age of car	Rate of Depreciation
0-6 months	5%
6 months-1 year	15%
1 year to 2 years	30%

 

10.      Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of the price of the Vitara Breeza car after deduction of 15% depreciation i.e. Rs.5,25,000-Rs.78,750/-(being 15% depreciation)=Rs.4,46,250/-.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

1. to refund price of Vitara Breeza car to the tune of Rs.4,46,250/- with interest @9% P.A. from the date of filing the complaint till onwards.
2. To refund Rs.3,60,000/- being price of the Verna car with interest @9% P.A. from the date of deposit till onwards
3. to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
4. to pay Rs.7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i),(ii)& (iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iv) above.
13.      After payment of price of the Vitara Breeza car as  directed above the complainant shall return the said car to the OPs alongwith necessary documents and the OPs shall collect the same from the  complainant.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member