Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/217/2019

K M Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

T S G Automobiles Rep by its Proptr - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

11 Jul 2022

ORDER

                                                                                 Date of Complaint Filed: 02.08.2019

Date of Reservation      : 24.06.2022

Date of Order               : 11.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.217/2019

MONDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF JULY 2022

Mr. K.M.Anand,

No.15/302, Andal Nagar,

CowzalBazzar Main Road,

Polizchulur,

Chennai-600 074.                                                                                                                                                      ... Complainant

..Vs..

 

1.TSG Automobiles,

   Represented by its Proprietor,

   No-25, M.A.Road, Phoenix Bay,

   Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands,

   India.

 

2.Vivek Pillai,

   Proprietor of Full Throttle Automotive,

   No.1, Rajarajan Street,

   Next to Punjab National Bank,

   Ekkattuthangal,

   Chennai - 600 032.                                                                                                                                              ... Opposite Parties

 

Counsel for the Complainant              : Party in Person

Counsel for the Opposite Parties         : Exparte

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the

 

Complainant in person, we delivered the following:

 

 

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1. The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays for a sum of Rs.6,60,713/- along with an interest of 18% on Rs.4,90,000/- from 19th November 2018 till initiation of the Complainant and an interest of 18% on 6,60,713/- from the date of filing of the suit and direct the Opposite Parties to pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.

2. The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:

The Complainant had purchased second hand Skoda Superb vehicle from the 2^nd Opposite Party who represented as the Agent of the 1^st Opposite Party and since the purchase of the referred vehicle he has been facing with several problems. On 17.11.2018 the Complainant had contacted Mrs.Hemalatha W/o Vivek Pillai, the 2^nd Opposite Party after going through the advertisement published in OLX website. On 19.11.2018 the Complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.10,100 advance to book the Skoda Superb Vehicle  vide No.AN-01-F-7171 and a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was finally fixed to buy the said vehicle. The Complainant was also given assurance that one year warranty will be given to the vehicle from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The Complainant  on receiving a call from the 2^nd Opposite Party requesting urgent payment since there was some financial need for  2^nd Opposite Party had transferred a sum of Rs.49,100/- on 23.11.2018 and the sum of Rs.49,900/- on 24.11.2018 and a cash of Rs.1000/- by hand in all total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the 2^ndOpposite Party. When the Complainant inquired about status of the vehicle he was assured that the vehicle was in a good condition. On 01.12.2018 the Complainant had transferred Rs.40,000/- and a cash of Rs.60,000/- to the 2^nd Opposite Party. On 06.12.2018 remaining amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was given to the 2^nd Opposite Party. At the time of receiving the vehicle, the papers relating to the vehicle was also handed over to the Complainant, the following defects noticed:

a)Tax for the vehicle was paid only till 22.12.2016 in the RC Book

b)Pollution control certificate was valid only till 14.09.2018

c)Insurance was valid only till 11.12.2018

d)No objection certificate was valid only till 22.12.2018

e)Insurance transfer form was given in blank with just signature with no authenticity

f)Sale receipt certificate was given in blank with just the signature with no authenticity

g)Notice of transfer of ownership not properly signed

Until and unless ownership is transferred to the name of the Complainant the sale is considered to be incomplete sale and the same was also notified to the 2^nd Opposite Party. Ever since the purchase of the vehicle the Complainant was forced to face heavy problems by the 2^nd Opposite Party, who never bothered resolve the issue on the registration of the vehicle in the name of the Complainant, the Complainant was forced to renew the insurance for the vehicle without which the transfer of vehicle in the name of the Complainant could not be possible. On 15.12.2018 within 10 days of purchase of the vehicle the car got struck down on the middle of the road and the Complainant had to engage the Skoda assistance who towed the  vehicle and a sum of Rs.2500/- was given as towage charges, it is then it came to the knowledge of the Complainant that the vehicle was given only once in 2014 for service and the vehicle had no history of service records. The Complainant had paid Rs.8548/- for replacement of Master Cylinder of the vehicle. On 17-12-2018 the vehicle was released from the service centre and within a span of 4 days again the vehicle struck on the middle of the road and again the same was informed to the 2^nd Opposite Party with no response and had sought the assistance of Skoda road side assistance where again the Complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.9830/- for the repair of slave cylinder. The 2^nd Opposite Party never bothered to help the Complainant in the registration which was really disappointing. By the time Complainant was able to sort of the procedure for the registration, NOC expired for the vehicle and the Complainant requested the 2^nd Opposite Party to get fresh NOC and other documents for which the 2^nd Opposite Party informed the Complainant that they are trying to contact the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant came to know that  for the registration of the vehicle in his name it would cost around Rs.3 Lakhs after enquiry from the transport office, the 2^nd Opposite Party had completely suppressed this fact to the complainant and sold the vehicle for their profit which is highly unethical. The 2^nd Opposite Party  had charged a sum of Rs.25,300/- for doing repair though the vehicle was within the warranty as per the terms of sale 2^nd Opposite Party. The cash was transferred to the 2^nd Opposite Party, who assured that there want won’t be any trouble in the near future for the said vehicle and also assured that the 2^nd Opposite Party will get the required documents from the 1^st Opposite Party for registration in favour of the Complainant. However till now no documents handed over to the Complainant nor registration had taken place. Within  one month after the repair of the vehicle done by the 2^nd Opposite Party above referred vehicle stopped working and again the Complainant had to engage the services of a tow vehicle and the vehicle was taken to Skoda service centre on 11.03.2019 for diagnosis and for which towage charges of Rs.2,500/- was paid from where the Complainant came to know that engine has totally failed and there is a need for engine overhaul. The service centre had informed the Complainant that it would cost around a sum of Rs. 4,80,173/- to perform the necessary repair and the same was informed to the 2^nd Opposite Party  for which the 2^nd Opposite Party had informed to tow the vehicle to the 2^nd Opposite Party’s garage and on 19.03.2019 the vehicle was delivered to the 2^nd Opposite Party for repair. There were several communications between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party requesting the 2^nd Opposite Party to take back the vehicle and give back the money to the Complainant as the vehicle which was sold was in fact a defective piece. The Complainant had sent a demand notice to the Opposite Parties on 10.05.2019 demanding compensation of Rs.6,60,713/-. Even after receiving the demand notice both the Opposite Parties have neither paid the cost not bothered to even reply to the said notice. Hence the Complaint.

3.     The Complainant filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-16 marked. Inspite of sufficient notice to the Opposite Parties, they failed to appear before this Commission and remained exparte.  

4.      Points For Consideration :-

1.     Whether the Opposite Parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service?

2.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint or not?

3.     Whether the Complainant is entitled for any other reliefs?

Point No.1 :-

The contention of the Complainant is that on seeing the advertisement published in OLX website on 17.11.2018 the Complainant had contacted the 2^nd Opposite Party. On 19.11.2018 the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.10,100/- as advance for the purchase of the Skoda Superb Vehicle  vide No.AN-01-F-7171 and a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- was finally fixed to buy the said vehicle, on assurance that one year warranty will be given to the vehicle from the date of purchase of the vehicle. It was further contended that due to some financial need for 2^nd Opposite Party the Complainant had transferred amounts on various dates and on 06.12.2018 remaining amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was given to the 2^nd Opposite Party as found in Ex.A-6. As per Ex.A-7 the Complainant had taken delivery of the said vehicle on payment of full settlement sale price of Rs.4,90,000/-. After taking delivery of the vehicle and on perusal of the papers relating to the vehicle the Complainant had noticed various defects in the documents furnished and contended that until ownership is transferred to the name of the Complainant the sale is considered to be incomplete sale. It was contended that ever since the purchase of the vehicle the Complainant faced several problems with the vehicle even after several repairs and finally when the service centre had informed the Complainant that it would cost around a sum of Rs. 4,80,173/- for complete  repair, the same was informed to the 2^nd Opposite Party  and on 19.03.2019 the vehicle was delivered to the 2^nd Opposite Party for repair. Inspite of several communications between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party requesting the 2nd Opposite Party to take back the defective vehicle and return the money to the Complainant there was no response. Hence as per Exs A-14 to 16, the Complainant had sent a demand notice dated 10.05.2019 to the Opposite Parties demanding compensation of Rs.6,60,713/-, which was received by both the Opposite Parties, but no response.

On careful perusal of the Complaint, Proof Affidavit and the Exhibits marked on the side of the Complainant it is seen that the Complainant had purchased  a second hand Skoda Superb Vehicle  vide No.AN-01-F-7171 from the 2^nd Opposite Party. As per Ex.A-7, the Complainant had taken delivery of the used vehicle on 06.12.2018. At the time of taking delivery it is evident from Exs.A-1 to A5, the Opposite Parties had handed over  the documents pertaining to the Vehicle including Insurance Transfer Form, Notice of Transfer of Ownership and No objection Certificate. If there was any discrepancies in the document, the Complainant ought to have verified the documents when the same was handed over and at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle. Moreso, Ex.A-7, in the Delivery Note it is specifically stated that the entire risk was with the Complainant from that date, i.e, 06.12.2018. There is no warranty given by the Opposite Parties as alleged in the Complaint.As the Complainant had purchased second hand car with no warranty from the Opposite Parties,  at his entire risk he is not entitled for the repair charges and other charges from the Opposite Parties.

The Complainant has placed reliance on the Order dated 20.01.2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Techno Mukund Constructions Vs Mercedes Benz India Limited and another, reported in (2011) 1 CPJ 119, wherein it was held that “the conduct of the Opposite Parties amounts to an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(1)( r )(1)(iii). Under this provision any false representation of rebuilt, second hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods, for the purposes of promoting sale thereof, amounts to an unfair trade practice. As the victim of this unfair trade practice the Complainant, deserves to be compensated by the Respondents/Opposite Parties”.

The said Order is not applicable to the instant case, as the Complainant had knowingly purchased a second hand Skoda Superb Vehicle from the 2^nd Opposite Party.

Reliance was also placed on the Order dated 05.01.2011 passed by the Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Inder Dev Singh Vs Ashok Kumar, reported in (2011) CPJ 25, wherein it was observed that the OP had failed to provide the Complainant No Objection Certificate so that the Complainant may get the vehicle transferred in his favour which the OP has failed to provide. Hence the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- was enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.The said order is also not applicable to the present case, as the Opposite parties had issued No Objection Certificate to the Complainant and documents for transfer of vehicle in the name of the Complainant which the Complainant had to follow up and get the vehicle transferred in his name. Hence there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties.

 

Point No.2 and 3:-

As discussed and decided in Point No.1, that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the Complaint or for any other reliefs.  Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the Complainant.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 11^th of July 2022.

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                              T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                          B.JIJAA

       MEMBER II                                                                               MEMBER I                                                              PRESIDENT

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	-	Vehicle Registration Certificate
Ex.A2	-	Insurance transfer Form, Sale Receipt, Form 29,Form 30, Form 60
Ex.A3	12.12.2017	Insurance Certificate
Ex.A4	15.03.2018	Pollution control Certificate
Ex.A5	10.04.2018	No Objection Certificate
Ex.A6	19.11.2018 to 06.12.2018	Cash Receipts
Ex.A7	06.12.2018	Delivery Note
Ex.A8	14.12.2018	Renewed Insurance Policy
Ex.A9	17.12.2018	Gurudev Motors Cash Receipts
Ex.A10	21.12.2018	Gurudev Motors Cash Receipts
Ex.A11	19.03.2019	Gurudev Motors Cash Receipts and Estimate Receipt
Ex.A12	19.03.2019	Tow Vehicle Receipts
Ex.A13		Watsapp Communications
Ex.A14	10.05.2019	Demand Notice issued to 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties
Ex.A15	13.05.2019	Acknowledgement card signed by the 2nd opposite Party
Ex.A16	20.06.2019	Letter issued by the postal department confirming the delivery of post to 1st Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                            B.JIJAA

       MEMBER II                                                                               MEMBER I                                                                PRESIDENT