Date of filing: 28.06.2016 Date of disposal: 08.01.2018.
Complainant: Mr. Chirodip Roy, S/o. Sri N.Roy, resident of 20 No, Ramgolam Road, P.S.-
Asansol(S), Dist.-Burdwan, W.B., Pin-713303.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. Tata Motors, having its Registered/Corporate Office at 24, Homi Modi
Street, Bombay House, 1st floor,Hutama Chowk, Mumbai-400 001,
represented by its Chairman.
2. The Managing Director, B.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd., authorized dealer of Tata
Motors, having its corporate office at Diamond Prestige, 41A AJC Bose
Road, 1st floor, Room No.115, Kolkata, Pin-7000017.
3. The General Manager (Sales), B.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Authorised dealer of
Tata Motors, having its office at NH-2, South Dhadka, Asansol, near Hotel-
Rajpath, P.S.-Asansol (S), Dist.-Burdwan, W.B., Pin-713302.
Present: Hon’ble President: Smt.Jayanti Maitra(Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Miss Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant : Ld. Advocate, Debdas Rudra & Others.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.1: Ld. Advocate, Biswanath Nag.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No.2 & 3: Ld. Advocate, Souren Mitra.
JUDGEMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to refund of Rs. 4,68,713 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 27.2.2016 to the date of realization, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that he is an Advocate of Durgapur Sub-Divisional Court, Durgapur. On 19.2.2016 the complainant approached to the O.P. No.3 show room for purchasing a four wheeler of Tata Brand. The O.P. No.3 showed a Tata India Vista Lx TDI, BSIII-TCIC by colour Jet Silver, bearing Chassis No.MAT608525DLK26178 and Engine No.4751DT14KWYP51723. The O.P. No. 3 asked the complainant that the value of the said car is Rs.5,71,330/- but after discount from their end the complainant have to pay Rs.4,68,713/- towards the cost of the vehicle. Being satisfied the complainant paid Rs.5000/- in cash on 25.2.2016 to the O.P. No.3. The complainant further paid Rs.50,000/- to the O.P. No.3 on 26.2.2016. The complainant decided that rest amount of Rs.4,13,713/- will be paid after obtaining loan from the bank. The O.P. No.3 assured the complainant to render necessary co-operation for procuring bank loan. The General Manager (Sales), O.P. No.3 requested the complainant to put his signature on blank stamp papers and some other documents for obtaining bank loan. The complainant on good faith and relying upon the O.P. No.3 gave his signature on blank stamp papers and some other documents. The O.P. No.3 intimated the complainant that bank has refused to disburse the bank loan to the complainant against the said vehicle. At that moment the complainant could not decide about it. At last the complainant collect the money from his relative and paid Rs. 4,13,713/-to the O.P. No.3 on 27.2.2016 and took the delivery of the car. After delivery of the said vehicle the complainant received insurance certificate and registration certificate from the National Insurance Company Ltd. and from M.V. Department, Asansol.
After few days from the purchase the complainant noticed some inconvenience in driving the vehicle and the vehicle prima facie seemed to be a used one and the engine made peculiar sound coupled with low fuel average and it was bereft of the comfort zone which is not expected from a new unused vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant went to the O.P. No.3 along with his vehicle ad reported the said matter and requested to remove the said problem. But the O.P. No.3 did not do the needful which is clearly indicate deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.
Thereafter the complainant came to know that the vehicle which he had purchased from the O.P. No.3 was not a new one but it was an old, second hand and used one vehicle. The complainant came to learn that the O.P. No.3 earlier sold the said vehicle to one Mr. Jugal Kishore Khemka, resident of Gosaipara, P.O.-Pandaveswar, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713346 on 17.9.2015. After obtaining loan from the Oriental Bank of Commerce Mr. Khemka purchased the said vehicle. The O.P. No.3 issued a delivery challan of the said vehicle bearing model No. Tata India Vista Lx TDI, BSIII-TCIC by colour Jet Silver, bearing Chassis No.MAT608525DLK26178 and Engine No.4751DT14KWYP51723 in favour of the Mr. Jugal Kishore Khemka. Said vehicle suffered from defect and for this reason Mr. Khemka returned the said vehicle to the O.P. No.3.
The O.P. No.3 again sold the said disputed vehicle to one Mr.Samir Kumar Ghosal, resident of Keranibandh, Lal Bazar, Dist.-Bankura on 8.10.2015 and Mr. Ghosal purchased the vehicle by loan from the HDFC Bank. The B.D. Motors Pvt., Durgapur Branch issued a delivery challan of the said vehicle on 8.10.2015 in favour of Mr. Ghosal. Mr. Ghosal detected the defect of the vehicle and ultimately he placed the said vehicle before the O.P., B.D. Motors for removing the said defect by way of proper servicing. But the defect of the engine was not removed. So, Mr. Ghosal returned the defective vehicle and purchased a new one.
The complainant was confirmed and realized that being misguided and misrepresented by the O.P. No.3, the complainant purchased a second hand used vehicle which was originally manufactured in the year 2013 but O.P. No.3 falsely represented that the same had been manufactured in the year 2015. The complainant could not imagine such kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the O.Ps. This type of act of the O.P. No.1, B.D. Motors is highly deplorable and for proper adjudication of this case the O.P. No.1, who is the manufacturer of the vehicle has also been impleaded in this case.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps., the complainant lodged complaint on 7.5.2016 before the competent authority i.e. O.P. No.2. But no fruitful result came from the O.P. No.2. Thereafter the complainant lodged another complaint before the Tata Motors through E-mail on 10.5.2016. The Customer Care Team of Tata Motors communicated to the complainant and stated that they have already intimated their West Bengal Regional Office as well as their authorized dealer B.D. Motors Pvt. Ltd. but till date no fruitful result came from their part. Finding no other alternatives the complainant filed this case before this Forum for relief as prayed for.
The O.P. No.1 contested the case by filing written statement denying all the material allegations as alleged by the complainant. This O.P. stated that the car, purchased by the complainant is a well-established product in the market and over a period of years the consumers are using the product and the complainant had taken delivery of the car after being satisfied with the condition of the car and its performance. It is submitted that the said car was delivered after carrying out Pre-Delivery Inspection by the dealer. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that all passenger cars/utility vehicles and commercial vehicles manufactured by this O.P. are marketed only after the prototype of the car/utility vehicle being approved by the Automotive Research Association of India. All the cars/utility vehicles manufactured in the plant of this O.P. are put through stringent control systems, quality checks and test drives by the Quality Assurance Department before being cleared for dispatch to the market. Every car/utility vehicle manufactured at the plant of this O.P. undergoes various quality control tests till the assembly line and thereafter it is made ready for dispatch. It is pertinent to state that this O.P. is ‘ISO TS/16949’ certified, which is the international standard for quality systems for all the automotive companies and this international standard specifies requirements for a quality system where an organization needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide product meeting customer’s satisfaction and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. Further this O.P. stated that after being dispatched to the authorized dealers of the opposite party, the said dealer carry out Pre-Delivery Inspection of all new cars/utility vehicles before selling it to customers as per the standard check-list. Furthermore whenever any car/utility vehicle reports to a workshop for scheduled services or for any repair, the complaints/grievance of the customer are recorded in the job card, which do not imply admission of any defects in the vehicle but a mere representation of the customer’s grievances on the said car/utility vehicle. Thereafter standard checks are carried out at the workshop and observation is recorded by the Service Advisor on the backside of the job card. It helps the concerned workshop to provide necessary consultancy/advice regarding the condition of the car/utility vehicle to the customer. The car is checked at the workshop by the Quality Inspector and by Diagnostic Expert-cum-Trainer during pre and post repairs to ensure quality workmanship. The Service Advisor of the workshop who interfaces with the customer, is adequately trained to provide proper job explanation of the works carried out and even provides tests drive to the customer at the time of delivery of the car/utility vehicle after every service/repairs to the entire satisfaction of the customer. The car/vehicle as attended by the opposite party’s dealers/service points fully comply with the warranties, assurances and specifications, provided for it by the manufacturer, regarding quality and performance of the car/utility vehicle. Hence, there cannot be any complaint of deficiency of service against this O.P. by the complainant and complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.
The O.P. No.2 & 3 also contested the case denying all the material allegations as alleged by the complainant. These O.P. stated that purchased vehicle has been delivered to the complainant by the B.D. Motors Ltd. on 27.2.2016 after obtaining the entire sale proceed along with Tool Kit and Manual Book and it is also admitted fact that the complainant had not paid any amount for insurance, road tax and registration which all are been made by the complainant at his own efforts. The O.P. No.2 & 3 also stated that by honouring the complainant’s request the B.D. Motors Ltd. have given the vehicle at the less of Rs.1,02,617/- considering all the facts which are been narrated by the B.D. Motors Ltd. to the complainant prior to sell out the same to him and on being agreed the complainant by furnishing the enclosed declaration had purchased the vehicle wherein he emphatically have stated that ‘this is to clarify that I am well aware of the fact that vehicle is manufactured in 2013, I have thoroughly observed the car and I am fully satisfied with its condition, I am buying this vehicle without any pressure and has paid Rs.4,68,713/- in cash’. So, question of suppressing all the facts does not arise at all.
There is neither any negligence or any latches nor any kind of malpractice and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering O.P. No.2 & 3 of B.D. Motors Ltd. for rendering any service to the complainant which amounts to any type of harassment nor has deprived the complainant as alleged, hence, the allegation of malpractice ad unfair trade practice on the part of this O.P. is blatant lie, and just to achieve his illegal and wrongful gain the complainant has cooked up the story which is not at all true as well as maintainable. The complainant has no cause of action as well as valid ground for filing the present complaint before the Ld. Forum against the opposite parties.
That only to cover up his own misdeeds and wrongful acts as well as to escape himself from his illegal as well as unauthorized and unconstitutional acts and misdeeds having his illegal greediness the complainant filed this case with false allegations only to create cloud, the complainant fabricated and engineered all the false, fake allegations. Hence, all the reliefs which are wrongfully claimed by the complainant are not at all bonafide and maintainable in law as well as facts and fits to be liable for dismissed with costs.
DECISION WITH REASON
To prove this case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit stating the facts of this case and O.P. also put questionnaires to the evidence of the complainant and complainant gave reply of the same. The O.P. prayed for treating his written version as his evidence.
On perusal of the evidence of the parties and after going through the documents filed by the parties and this Forum also gave a patience hearing of the elaborate argument tabled by Ld. Advocate of both parties and come to the following conclusion.
Admittedly, the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 27.2.2016. At the time of purchase the complainant paid Rs.5000/- on 25.2.2016. Thereafter paid Rs.50,000/- on 26.2.2016 and lastly paid Rs.4,13,713/- on 27.2.2016. The complainant stated that he purchased vehicle knowing fully well that the vehicle was manufactured in 2013 and he received discount of Rs.1,02,617/- from the B.D. Motors, O.P. No.3. The complainant alleges that he was deceived by the O.P. No.3 as they fraudulently sold away an used old car. That the said car was first sold on 17.9.2015 to one Mr. Jugal Kishore Khemka. The complainant filed a copy of delivery chalan (Annexure-D) in this regard of O.P. B.D. Motors. Thereafter said vehicle was again sold to one Samir Ghosal on 8.10.2015 and copy of delivery chalan of B.D. Motors (Annexure-E) is filed. Complainant himself is a practicing Advocate and he claims that he put his signature on blank stamp paper. But the said document filed by the O.P. No.3 shows that it is in the form of declaration that the complainant certifies he is well aware of the vehicle manufactured in 2013. He thoroughly observed the car and being satisfied with its condition purchasing the same without any pressure from anybody and paid Rs.4,68,713/- in cash. He put his signature on 27.2.2016 i.e. on the date of his last payment. It is something impractical to believe that being a law abiding person and as an advocate he put his signature on some blank stamp paper. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove his statement that the document was procured fraudulently by B.D. Motors on some blank stamp papers on the belief of securing bank loan for purchasing the vehicle. The complainant also stated in his petition as well as in his evidence that O.P. intimated to the complainant that bank has refused to disburse the loan. How is it possible to approach to a bank and refusal of the said bank for loan on a single day i.e. 26.2.2016 or 27.2.2016. No document is filed by the complainant to show that he applied for bank loan and was refused by the bank. The complainant was in a hurry to purchase the vehicle by paying Rs.5000/- on 25.2.2016, Rs.50,000/- on 26.2.2016 and Rs.4,13,713/- on 27.2.2016 i.e. total Rs.4,68,713/-. But in Retail Invoice (Anne3xure-B) as disclosed by the complainant it appears that the Invoice was for Rs.5,71,330/-. The Insurance Policy (Annexure-C) was issued on 29.2.2016. Complainant did not disclose Job Card or Tax Invoice that he took vehicle to service centre for alleged mechanical problem. All these facts and conduct of the complainant and his declaration on the stamp paper put his signature as well as his initial at the foot of the stamp paper with date goes to show and it appears to this Forum that the stamp paper was not blank when he put his signature. Moreover it appears to this Forum that the complainant after being satisfied of the condition of the said vehicle and being well informed that it is an used car he agreed to purchase the same at a huge discount of Rs.1,02,617/-. In reply to the questionnaire put to him by the O.P. he answered that from his childhood since 1970 he is using his family car and well aware of motor car and its use. So, he must have purchased the car being satisfied with its condition and with full knowledge that it is an used car manufactured in the year 2013. Moreover the O.P. at the time of delivery of the car bears the expenses for insurance, road tax and registration charges in addition to the concession given of Rs.1,02,617/- for that car.
The O.P. No.2 & 3 adduced evidence and stated that the complainant received vintage discount and executed as written acknowledgement on the date of purchase i.e. on 27.2.2016 and agreed by furnishing the declaration that he had purchase the vehicle being well aware of the fact that it was manufactured in 2013. That being an Advocate he with his own afford insured the vehicle mentioning value of the vehicle of Rs.5,42,764/- instead of actual he has paid Rs.4,68,713/- and date of manufacturing was willfully mentioned as 2015 instead of 2013.
The O.P. Tata Motors in his written version stated that the car was delivered after carrying out pre-delivery inspection by the dealer. That the company manufactured the vehicle, it is ‘ISO Ts/16949 certified which is international standard for quality systems for reputed automotive company. That the company maintained the quality to the customer’s satisfaction and following all satisfactory and regulatory requirements. The complaints/grievance if any, is recorded in the job card. There is no job card filed by the complainant showing any admission of any defects in the vehicle. After checks are carried out at the workshop and observation is recorded by the Service Advisor on the backside of the job card of the vehicle, usually. Complainant failed to prove by sufficient documents that the car developed any manufacturing defects or that the previous purchaser of the car after taking of the delivery returned the vehicle to the B.D. Motors, O.P. No.3 following any defect.
Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.2 & 3 cited some judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court regarding suppression of material fact as reported in 2008(12) SCC 481 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 1999 (1) GLR 499 Akshar Share Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ano. Case. The O.P. also cited another decision of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, Ashwani Kumar Vs. Setia Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Associate Hotels of India Ltd. Vs. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh on 7.12.1967 (SC).
On the other hand Ld. Lawyer for the complainant cited judgment of Hon’ble National Commission vide Revision Petition No.2379/2004 decided on 01.12.2004, that ‘petitioner was guilty of unfair trade practice having supplied an old vehicle as new one’. But in this case the complainant has admitted that the vehicle was an old one, manufactured in the year 2013 and was well informed to him by the O.P. The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant also submitted a judgment of Hon’ble SCDRC of Punjab (Chandigarh), where it was stated that ‘O.Ps. practiced fraud and unfair trade practice by selling an old vehicle by a new one’. The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant cited another judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi reported in 2016(3) CPR (NC) 381, that he was never informed that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2013 and the O.P. mis-represented the fact’. All these judgments are not applicable in this case as the complainant himself being well aware purchased the vehicle manufactured in the year 2013 at a concessional rate ant it is definite case of the complainant. So, complainant is unable to prove his case by evidence and sufficient documents that the O.Ps. are negligent and deficient in service. He is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hence, the case fails. Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the consumer complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the all O.Ps. without any cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Nivedita Ghosh)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
