DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.429 of 13
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 20.09.2013
DATE OF ORDER: -28.09.2015
Anil Kumar, aged 42 years son of Shri Kanwal Nain, resident of Lohar Bazar Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Tata Motors Limited Range 1 Pipri, Pune (Maharashtra) through its General Manager.
- Tridev Motor Rohtak Road, near new Bus Stand, Bhiwani through its Proprietor/Manager (authorized dealer Tata Motor Limited).
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Rupesh Sharma, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri V. Acharaya, Advocate for OP No.1.
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that he purchased a new Tata Indica Vista LS diesel car from OP no. 2, who is authorized dealer of OP no. 1 on dated 29.06.2012 bearing registration no. HR-99 LE(TEMP) 4206 for an amount of Rs. 4,78,490/-. It is alleged that complainant paid Rs. 3,48,490/- through bank draft of Punjab National Bank on dated 28.06.2012 and given old car in exchange offer of remaining amount to OP no. 2 but the OP no. 2 given bill of small amount. It is further alleged that at the time of delivery of car OP no. 2 told the complainant that the car of model 2012 but the model was 2011. Complainant told the OP no. 2 about the model & OP no. 2 assured the complainant that he will talk to the company and new car will be given. The complainant further alleged that he also got served a legal notice dated 13.06.2013 but failed to comply with the same. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement and took preliminary objections and denied the allegations of the complainant. On merits, it is alleged that complainant has got temporary registration of his car which was valid for limited time and complainant has not registered his car under Indian Motor Vehicle Act. It is submitted that the complainant was accused under Section 207 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that the dispute regarding the model of the car is between the complainant and the OP no. 2 and further the exchange offer contract was between OP no. 2 and complainant & authorized dealers appointed on ”Principal to Principal” basis for sale of vehicles. There is no allegation on behalf of the complainant regarding the manufacturing defect in the vehicle. It is also submitted that the averments made in the complaint are vague and baseless. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.11.2013.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A & documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C-21 and closed the evidence.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record supporting affidavit of M.K. Vipin, Senior Manager, Tata Motors Limited.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the car in question was purchased by the complainant on 29.06.2012 from OP no. 2, who is authorized dealer of OP no. 1. The OP no. 2 has sold the car in question is of the model of year 2012, but later on the complainant came to know about the model of the car as of the year 2011. The OP no. 2 has committed fraud with the complainant by not disclosing the true year of the model of the car in question. In support of his contention he referred the photos of the car in question and the documents produced by the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for OP No. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not regarding the manufacturing defect in the car in question or there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1. The vehicle in question has been sold by the OP no. 2, who is authorized dealer of OP no. 1, and the dispute raised by the complainant with regard to the model of the car etc., is a matter between the complainant and OP no. 2 on ”Principal to Principal” basis. He further submitted that the OP no. 1 has nothing to do with the matter in dispute, which is between the complainant and OP no. 2.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties we have examined the relevant material on record. The month and year of manufacturer of the car in question has been mentioned as January 2012 in the sale certificate dated 27.06.2012 Annexure C17 issued by the OP no. 2 in the name of the complainant. The year of manufacturer has been mentioned as 2012 in the temporary registration certificate Annexure C-20 issued by the OP no. 2 to the complainant. The OP no. 2 did not bother to appear and contest the complaint. The evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted on behalf of the OP no. 2. We are agree with the contention of OP no. 1 that the matter in dispute is concerned between the complainant and OP no. 2 and the OP no. 1 has no role to play. Taking into account every aspect of the case, in the circumstances of the case, we award Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant against the OP no. 2, and also award Rs. 2500/- as litigation cost to the complainant. This order be complied with by the OP no. 2 within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 28.09.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
