Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/77/2016

Sh J S Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Stan wheels Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Kamal Nagpal

25 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.77 of 2016

                                                            Date of institution:  08.08.2016        

                                                                      Date of decision  :   25.01.2017

Sh. J.S.Chawla aged about 54 years C/o Ashoka & Company, Fort Bazar, Patiala.

                                                                                         ….Complainant

 

Versus

1. Stan Wheels Pvt. Ltd. G.T.Road, Near G.P.S.College, Mandi Gobindgarh through its proprietor Dr. Naresh Malhotra.
2.  

Dr. Naresh Malhotra, resident of DMC Road, Near Rose Garden, Ludhiana.

2. Managing Director Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Plot No.1 Malson Mondela Road, Vasant Kunj, Delhi.
3. Zonal Manager Mr. Madhu Mallu, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., SCO 39-40, Sector-8, Chandigarh.

  …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                         

                          Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

 

Present :            Sh. Kamal Nagpal, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                

                                     Opposite party No.1 exparte.

                          None for OPs No. 2 & 3.

 

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, J.S.Chawla aged about 54 years C/o Ashoka & Company, Fort Bazar, Patiala, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant purchased a Maruti Car Model Swift VDI, white Colour bearing engine No.D13A0509479 and Chassis No.MA3FHEB1S00712441 from OP No.1 on 05.08.2014 for Rs.6,00,187/-, vide invoice bill No. MG238 dated 05.08.2014. OP No.1 demanded Rs.44,300/- for preparing registration certificate. The complainant paid Rs.34,000/- on 11.09.2014 and Rs.10,300/- on 05.12.2014 vide receipt No.845 & 1316 respectively. But OP No.1 failed to provide the RC within stipulated time even after receiving the payment. The complainant was compelled to get R.C. prepared with his own efforts from Patiala, which was issued to the complainant on 20.01.2015. Thereafter, the complainant requested OP No.1 to refund Rs.44,300/-, which was paid for preparation of the RC but OP No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  Thereafter OP No.1 issued a cheque against the said payment but he cleverly got the same back from the complainant to save his skin from the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. OP No.1 assured the complainant that he will make the payment in cash. But till date he has not refunded the said amount to the complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice upon the OPs but in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.44,300/- along with interest and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.                   Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs. But OP No.1 failed to turn up and chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, he was proceeded against exparte. OPs No.2 and 3 also not turned up but they sent their written version by registered post.

4.                   In reply to the complaint OPs No. 2 & 3 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant is not a 'Consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986; the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and the present complaint is not maintainable against them. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated that OP No.1 was terminated more than a year ago. Even though the  relationship between OP No.1 and OPs No. 2 and 3 are on principal to principal basis as is governed under the provisions of Dealership Agreement executed between them. OPs No. 2 & 3 are not responsible for any act of omission or commission on the part of OP No.1, an erstwhile dealer. It is further stated that the complainant has admittedly purchased the vehicle in question from OP No.1 under a contract for sale of goods after having entered into an agreement with OP No.1. The complainant has neither paid any amount to OPs No. 2 & 3 nor OP No.2 & 3 are liable to sell/deliver the vehicle in question to complainant. It is further stated that OPs No.2 & 3 never received any consideration for providing RC to the complainant and they are not responsible to the complainant in any manner. The complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his allegations against OPs No.2 & 3. No cause of action has arisen against them. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No. 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them.

5.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence copy of invoice dated 05.08.2014 as Ex. C-1, copy of receipts Ex. C-2 & C-3, copy of cheque Ex. C-4, copy of legal notice & postal receipts Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-9, copy of receipts of tax and fee deposited with DTO Patiala Ex. C-10 & C-11, affidavit of complainant Ex. C-12 and closed the evidence. OPs No.2 & 3 failed to turn up for leading evidence. Hence, their evidence was closed by order.

                      None of the OPs appeared before this Forum during the pendency of the complaint except the written version of OPs No.2 and 3 received by post on 29.09.2016.

6.                   The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that at the time of purchase of the said car, the OPs had assured the complainant that they would get the registration certificate(RC) issued from the concerned registering authority as per rules of the Punjab Transport Department. The OPs had already received the entire charges of Rs.44,300/- like Registration fee and taxes from the complainant on 11.09.2014 & 05.12.2014. That the complainant so many times visited and requested the OPs to hand over the RC but in vain. Then the complainant was compelled to get the RC prepared at his own level from Patiala by paying all charges from his pocket. OP No.1 neither got prepared the RC nor refunded the amount of Rs.44,300/- received from the complainant by him for preparing the RC. Thus the OPs have committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice. The Ld. counsel thus pleaded for the acceptance of his complaint and heavy penalty be imposed on OPs.

7.                   OP No.2 and 3 in their joint written reply stated that relationship between OPs No. 2 & 3 and OP No.1 are on principal to principal basis and that they are not responsible for registration of vehicle in question. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No. 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them.

                      Non-appearance of OP No.1 before this Forum to contest this complaint despite proper and effective service in itself is admission on its part of the averments made in the complaint.

8.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submission of the Ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs No.1 has miserably failed to honour their obligation of getting the vehicle registered even after getting all the payments. They have not bothered to refund the amount of Rs.44,300/- received from the complainant for registration of the vehicle even when the complainant had got the RC issued from Patiala by paying fees and taxes from his own pocket afresh. OP No.1 has not even replied to the legal notice received by it from the complainant. They have not bothered to refund the amount to the complainant even during the pendency of the complaint.

9.                   In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and find that OPs No.1 has committed grave deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment to the complainant by not handing over the RC and not refunding the amount received from the complainant for this purpose when they could not get the RC issued from the competent authority. Complaint against OPs No.  2 & 3 is hereby dismissed. Hence, we direct OPs No. 1;

1.  To refund Rs.44,300/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of receipt i.e. Rs.34,000/- on 11.09.2014 and Rs.10,300/- on 05.12.2014 till realization;
2. To pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony and harassment and for deficiency in service and indulging in unfair trade;
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

 The order be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10                  The arguments on the complaint were heard on 13.01.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                                             

                                Dated: 25.01.2017                           

                                                                                               (Veena Chahal)                                                  

                                                                                                       Member

 

                                                                                               (A.B.Aggarwal)   

                                                                                                   Member