STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 297 of 2012 |
Date of Institution | : | 30.08.2012 |
Date of Decision | : | 13.12.2012 |
Hyundai Motors India Limited, Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudar, Taluk, Kancheepuram, Distt. Tamilnadu-602105, through its Authorized Representative.
……Appellant/Opposite Party No.2
V e r s u s
1. Surinder Gandhi son of Sh.Harbans Lal Gandhi, resident of House No.195, Sector 49-A. Advocate Enclave, Chandigarh. (respondent no.1/ complainant).
2. KLG Hyundai, Ashwani Automobiles Private Limited, 181/3-B, Industrial Area, near Tribune Chowk, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director. (respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.1)
....Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Respondent no.1 in person.
Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no.2.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.07.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, as under:-
“Henceforth, judged from any angle, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the OPs were not only negligent & deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant but they also indulged into an unfair trade practice. Therefore, there is lot of merit, weight and substance in the present complaint. Thus, the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to jointly & severally pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental & physical harassment, along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
This order be complied with by OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be jointly & severally liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 16.1.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs as aforesaid”.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased Hyundai Verna CRDi 1.4 Car, from Opposite Party No.1 (now respondent no.2), after paying full and final amount on 20.6.2011 vide Ann.C-1. Opposite Party No.1, failed to give delivery of the car, for about four days. Ultimately, the car was delivered to the complainant on 24.6.011 vide Ann.C-2. It was stated that the complainant did not want to purchase the vehicle, with Navigator, Geographical Positioning System (GPS), but Opposite Party No.1, insisted that it was necessary to purchase this accessory, alongwith the vehicle, and, as such, he had to make extra payment for GPS, though, he had already made full and final payment to Opposite Party No.1.
3. It was further stated that, according to the relevant Rules, the complainant was to get the vehicle registered with the concerned State Transport Authority (STA), Chandigarh, within a period of 30 days, from the date of purchase of the same, but he could not get it registered within the said period, inspite of completing the necessary documentation, because the file was returned by the STA, Chandigarh, stating that the model of the car, in question, had not been got approved, for launching the same in the market. The complainant brought this matter to the notice of Opposite Party No.1, which supplied a copy of the certificate (Ann.C-3), dated 15.7.2011, stating therein, that it had no concern with the issue of registration, with the STA, and the same was between Hyundai Motors India Limited and the Registration and Licensing Authority, U.T., Chandigarh only. It was further stated that the vehicle was, ultimately got registered on 26.8.2011 vide Ann.C-4. It was further stated that, thus, the complainant failed to use the car for about 1½ months, on account of the reason, that the model of the said car, had not been got approved from the STA concerned, before launching the same, in the territory of Chandigarh.
4. It was further stated that the wind sheet glass of the vehicle was damaged, so the complainant visited the premises of Opposite Party No.1, on 30.11.2011, for repair/replacement of the same, and left the vehicle alongwith key. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, did not repair the car, inspite of several visits. It was further stated that the complainant needed the vehicle, urgently, and, thus, requested Opposite Party No.1 to handover the same, on 3.12.2011. At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant noticed that the Navigator GPS of the car was missing. It was reported to Opposite Party No.1, which assured to take the help of CCTV cameras, installed in its premises. Opposite Party No.1 also assured to provide the new GPS, and, as such, sent a Mechanic, to install the new GPS, but he (mechanic) installed inferior GPS, costing Rs.9,990/-, whereas, the earlier GPS was costing Rs.14,990/-.
5. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. The Opposite Parties were many a time asked to compensate the complainant, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.45,000/-, for unfair trade practice, and deficiency, in rendering service; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
6. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that the payment was cleared by the complainant, on 24.6.2011 and, thereafter, the delivery of the vehicle was given to him vide Annexures OP-1, OP-1/1 & OP-1/2. It was further stated that the complainant made a request for purchase of navigator and the same was fitted in the vehicle, on 25.6.2011, for which Rs.12,500/-, were charged from him, vide Ann.OP-1/3. It was further stated that the GPS (navigator) was received by the complainant on 7.12.2011 vide Ann.OP-1/4. It was further stated that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the navigator sold to the complainant was Rs.16,490/-, which proved that the navigator fitted, in his car, was of much higher price, than the earlier one. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, was, in no way concerned with the approval of the model of the car, by the STA, as the same was the duty of the Manufacturer i.e. Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that it was only a dealer and not the manufacturer. It was further stated that, even the complainant had not attached any document, to show that the registration was ever refused by the Registering Authority. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that the complainant was not a consumer qua it, as neither any amount was paid to it, nor any assurance was given by it, to him. It was further stated that the dispute was between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1/Dealer. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 is the manufacturer of all Hyundai Cars and Opposite Party No.1 is its authorized dealer. The relationship between the Parties was on a principal to principal basis. It was further stated that there was nothing, on record, to suggest that the registration of vehicle was refused by the State Transport Authority, as alleged, by the complainant. It was further stated that the registration of the vehicle, was not the responsibility of Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that it was the dealer i.e. Opposite Party No.1, which was responsible for the registration of the vehicle, sold by it, and not the manufacturer. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
8. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
9. After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
10. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.
11. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, respondent no.1 in person, Counsel for respondent no.2, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully
12. The first question, that falls for determination, in this appeal, is, as to whether, before launching the mode of the car, referred to above, in the Union Territory, Chandigarh, it was obligatory, upon Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, to obtain an approval of the State Transport Authority, or not. Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, enjoins upon the State Government to constitute the State Transport Authority, to exercise and discharge the powers and functions, specified, in sub-Section (3) and, in the like manner, constitute Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas, as may be specified, in the notification, in respect of each Regional Transport Authority, the powers and functions conferred by or under the chapter, on such Authorities. Under Section 111 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government has the power to make Rules, regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers, with respect to all matters, other than the matters specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 110. It means that under Section 111 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government is vested with the powers to frame Rules. It was, in pursuance of the powers, so vested, in the Administrator, Union Territory Chandigarh, under Section 111 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that the Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules 1990, were framed. Chapter VIII of these Rules, relates to Construction, Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles. According to Rule 130 of the Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules 1990, no person shall use and no person shall cause or allow to be used, or to be, in any pubic place, any motor vehicle, which does not comply with the Rules made under this chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter V of the Central Rules, or with any order, hereunder made by the State Transport Authority. Home Secretary, U.T., Chandigarh, has been designated as the State Transport Authority. It is evident from Annexure ‘D’ copy of the letter dated 11.04.2011, attached with the memorandum of appeal, by the Appellant, addressed to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Chandigarh, received by it on 17.07.2011, that the latter was requested to approve and register the Models of Verna car mentioned therein. It means that, on 20.06.2011, when the car was sold to the complainant, the model thereof had not been approved by the STA, U.T., Chandigarh. Annexure C-3 dated 15.07.2011 is a certificate issued by Opposite Party No.1-KLG Hyundai, wherein it was specifically mentioned as under:-
“THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT HYUNDAI NEW VERNA FLUIDIC IS NOT GETTING REGISTERED DUE TO SOME UNAVOIDABLE REASONS OF REGISTERING AND LICENSING AUTHORITY, U.T. CHANDIGARH.
THE AUTHORITY WILL START REGISTERING THE HYUNDAI NEW VERNA FLUIDIC AFTER 10TH AUGUST 2011 (TENTATIVE DATE) AS PER THE LAST MEETING HELD WITH THE REGISTERING AND LICENSING AUTHORITIES.
IT IS REQUESTED THAT TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FOIL A, SERIAL NO.2077 ASSIGNED TO VEHICLE NO.CH52(T) 2077 ENGINE NO.955556, CHASIS NO.014145, OWNERS NAME :MR. SURINDER GANDHI, HOUSE NO.195, ADVOCATE SOCIETY SECTOR -49/A, CHANDIGARH, VALID TILL 19TH JULY, 2011 IS GIVEN EXTENSION TILL 10TH AUGUST 2011 DUE TO THE ABOVE REASONS.
ASHWANI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., INDUSTRIAL AREA, CHANDIGARH, HAS NO CONCERN WITH THE ABOVE ISSUES AND CARRIES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE REGISTRATION PART. IT IS ONLY BETWEEN THE HYUNDIA MOTOR INDIA LTD AND REGISTRATION AND LICENSING AUTHORITY, U.T. CHANDIGARH
THIS LETTER IS JUST AUTHENTICATE THE DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE BETWEEN REGISTERING AND LICENSING AUTHORITY, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
MANAGER DATE:15THJULY 2011”
From Annexure C-3, it is crystal clear, that the vehicle was sold to the complainant, without getting it approved from the STA, U.T., Chandigarh, as a result whereof, it could not be registered, well in time. In Surinder Siao Vs. M/s Swami Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., and others, Appeal Case No.183 of 2010 alongwith other appeals, decided by this Commission, on 08.12.2010, and in Chandigarh Administration Vs. Lalit Mohan and others, Appeal No.04 of 2010, decided by this Commission, on 14.12.2010, a similar question of law arose, as to whether, despite the fact that the model of the car had been approved by the Automobile Research Association of India, Pune, a separate approval of the State Transport Authority, before launching the model, within the territorial Jurisdiction of that Authority, was required or not. In both the aforesaid appeals, the answer to this question, was rendered in the affirmative. In other words, it was held, in both the aforesaid appeals, that notwithstanding the fact, that the model had been approved, by the Automobile Research Association of India, Pune, before launching the same, in a particular State, the approval of the State Transport Authority, as per the relevant Rules, was required. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid appeals, by this Commission, is also applicable to the instant appeal. We are bound by the principle of law, laid down in the aforesaid appeals. It is, therefore, held that, under the relevant Rules, and in view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid appeals, decided by this Commission, the approval of the State Transport Authority, before launching the model of the car, in question, in the market, i.e. before the sale thereof, was a must. In the instant case, as stated above, the car was sold before the approval had been granted by the State Transport Authority, for launching the model, in U.T., Chandigarh. Thus, the Opposite Parties, indulged into unfair trade practice, by selling the car, in question, to the complainant on 20.06.2011, as by that date approval for launching the model, in question, had not been granted by the State Transport Authority, U.T., Chandigarh.
13. The car, in question, was sold on 20.06.2011, whereas, it was registered by the Licencing Authority on 26.08.2011 i.e. after more than two months, after the purchase of the same, on the ground that model of the same, had not been got approved by the Opposite Parties, before launching the same, in U.T., Chandigarh. It means that the complainant had to run from pillar to post, for 2 months, for the registration of car. It was, thus, not all possible, for the complainant, to ply the car, on the road, without the Registration Certificate. The Registration Certificate could not be issued, by the Registration Authority, without the grant of approval of the model, by the STA. No doubt, the complainant could ply the car, on the basis of Temporary Registration Number, only for a period of one month. For such unfair trade practice, the complainant was entitled to be compensated.
14. The complainant, claimed damages to the tune of Rs.45,000/-, on account of unfair trade practice, mental agony and harassment, caused to him, at the hands of the Opposite Parties and Rs.50,000/-, as cost of litigation. The District Forum, on the other hand, granted a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant. The amount of compensation, granted by the District Forum, was more than what was claimed by the complainant. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect, that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. We are of the considered opinion, that the compensation, of Rs.50,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, on account of the acts of omission and commission on the part of the Opposite Parties, is on the higher side. Compensation, in the sum of Rs.30,000/-, if awarded, in our considered opinion, would be just, reasonable and adequate. The order of the District Forum, to this extent, requires to be modified.
15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the Counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1 in person and respondent no.2.
16. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is modified, in the following manner:
i. The appellant/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, shall jointly and severally, pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.30,000/-, instead of Rs.50,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, for unfair trade practice, mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant.
ii. The other reliefs granted and directions given by the District Forum, shall remain intact.
17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion
Pronounced.
13.12.2012
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Rg
