| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/385/11 Date of Institution:- 17.11.2011 Order Reserved on:- 02.04.2024 Date of Decision:- 09.10.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, R/o G-107, Vivekanand Apartments Plot No.2, Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075 .….. Complainant VERSUS - Techno Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (Dealer of Tata Motors)
K-1/36, Raja Puri, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110075 - M/s Tata Motors Limited (Sales Division)
Passenger Car Business Unit -
Mumbai – 400001 - M/s Fiat India Automobiles Limited
B-19, Ranjan Gaon, MIDC Industrial Area, Ranjangaon – 412210, TalukaShirur, Dist. Pune. .…..Opposite Parties Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - The complainant booked a Grand Punto 90 HP Dieselcar with OP-1 on 24.12.2010, manufactured by OP-3, bearing chassis number MCA11834D07017125FN. The complainant paid Rs.1 lakh as an advance payment towards the total sale price of Rs.6.63 lakh, along with the exchange of the complainant's old Indica car, which wasassessed at Rs.30,000/-.
- The complainant alleges that the advance payment was inclusive of Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges of the white colourcar from the OP-2 plant in Pune as the colour was not available with
OP-1.
- The complainant was informed on 28.12.2010 that the car was being transported from Pune. The complainant finally received his vehicle on 31.12.2010. However, the complainant was allegedly not given the second key to the car. He was assured that the second key would be given to him the next day. But the same has not been handed over.
- Further, as per the 'User Manual'of the car (page no.12), the car was to be delivered along with two copies of the ignition key and a code card bearing the following vital codes as per the manual.
- The electronic code
- Mechanical key code is to be given to the Fiat-Tata dealership when ordering duplicate keys.
The OPs neither handed over the second remote key nor the electronic or mechanical key codes. - The complainant alleges that on the next day, i.e. 01.01.2011, the car did not open with the single remote key the OPs had given him, which looked used, unlabeled, worn out and old. The complainant approached the executive of OP-1, who assured him of replacement and hand- over the second key to him. The complainant states that he had travelled out of station after that, and hence, he noticed that he had been given a used car only once he returned.He reported his grievance to OP-3 on 20.01.2011 via email (page no.34), seeking details of his car. He was shocked that the car delivered to him bearing chassis number MCA11834D07017125FN was manufactured in June 2010 and invoiced to OP-1 on 24.06.2011.
- Confronted with the aforementioned detail, OP-1, throughthe executive of OP-1, visited the complainant's residence and revealed on 22.01.2011 that the complainant's car was, in fact, sourced from AI Motors, New Delhi, which had closed down its operations since. On 10.03.2011, the complainant received a letter from OP-1 (Page No.13) intimating that the duplicate key would be provided to him within 15-20 days. The complainant replied to this letter (pages no.18-23) vide email dated 10.05.2011 requesting OP-1 to replace the car and reimburse the amount of Rs.20,549/- for which OP-1 had issued no receipt. However, no action was taken by the OPs to address the complainant's grievance.
- Feeling cheated, the complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. He has prayed for the replacement of his car with a new one, and the additional expenses to be borne by the OPs, compensation for the mental harassment he faced to the tune of 25% of the cost of the car, i.e. Rs.1,73,250/-, Rs.6.93 lakh towards penalty to all the OPs and Rs.20,549/- towards excess amount paid by the complainant to OP-1 along with interest @12% p.a.
- On notice, OP-1 filed their reply. OP-1 stated that the complainant only wanted a white colour car,which was delivered to him when it was available.The white colour car had to be arranged by either the company or another dealer. Further, every time the complainant approached OP-1, he was duly attended to, and his allegation regarding OP-1 charging an excess amount is false as the details and breakup of charges are available in the invoice.
- OP-1 denies the complainant's claim regarding the non-supply of the second key, which OP-1 states was handed over to the complainant along with electronic and mechanical key codes at the time of delivery. Instead, the complainant lost his key and requested OP-1 for the duplicate key, for which he was informed that it would take a minimum of 15-20 days to arrange the duplicate keys. Further, the source of the vehicle in question was never concealed from the complainant.
- OP-2, the authorised service centre of OP-3, denied the allegations levelled by the complainant,praying forthe dismissal of the complaint, stating that though the complainant had alleged manufacturing defect in the car,he has not filed any documentary evidence/expert opinion to substantiate the same. Further, OP-2 deals on a "Principal to Principal basis" with its authorised dealers to sell and service the vehicles,and OP-3 is the manufacturer of the carin question and is responsible for resolving the complainant's grievance.
- OP-3 did not file any reply despite receipt of notice issued by this Forum, proof of which was filed by the complainant on record. Hence, OP-3 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.10.2012 when the complainant filed proof of adequate service to OP-3.
- The complainant filed rejoinder and his affidavit to be read in evidence wherein he reiterated the averments made in his complaint. OP-1 filed the affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, AR of the OP-1 and OP-2, filed the affidavit of Mr. M. K. Bipin Das, Manager (Legal) for OP-2, who echoed the statements as made in their individual replies. The complainant filed his written arguments, as did OP-1 & OP-2, and we have heard the complainant and OP-2. OP-1 sought time to address further arguments,which was allowed, and liberty was granted to OP-1 to do the needful within 15 days, but none appeared on OP-1's behalf thereafter.
- We have perused the documents placed on records by the contesting parties and, after carefully considering the facts and circumstances of this case, find that the complainant purchased a new Grand Punto 90 HP Diesel car from OP-1, manufactured by OP-3. The complainant paid Rs.6.63 lakh for the new car and also exchanged his old Indica car, which was assessed at the value of Rs.30,000/- on 24.12.2010.
- The complainant stated that the booking of the car was made through an advance cheque payment of Rs.1 lakh, which included the amount of Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges for the white car, as he desired a white colour vehicle. The complainant alleges that he was informed that a new car of white colour would have to be transported from OP-3's plant located in Pune.
- The complainant's case is that the OP-1 officials misled him and sourced the car from one AI Motors in Delhi, another dealer of OP-3, which had since shut down instead of from Pune, for which he paid an extra transportation amount. This fact was disclosed to him on 22.01.2011 by the OP-1's officials, who visited his premises only when he wrote to OP-3 via email on 20.01.2011, lodging his complaint with the manufacturer OP-3.
- Further, the complainant alleged that he was handed over only one ignition key to the car at the time of delivery instead of two, as is mandatory and also mentioned in the user manual of the vehicle in question. OP-1 did not provide the CODE card bearing the electronicand mechanical key codes that would be needed to order duplicate keys were not provided, which are vital information.
- Aggrieved by the OP's clear misrepresentation, the complainant sent a complaint to all the OPs to no avail. He thereafter preferred this complaint before this Forum.
- OP-1 and 2 contested the complaint. OP-3 was proceeded ex-parte when none appeared for OP-3 despite adequate service. OP-1 denied the complainant's averments regarding keeping him in the dark regarding the source of the car and emphatically denied misplacing the second key at the time of delivery of the new vehicle. OP-1 admits that on the request of the complainant of a white colour car, they raised a request to OP-3 for the same and were made awareof the white colour car's availability with AI Motors, whose business had since closed, and hence the vehicle was given to the complainant.
- Further, they emphatically stated that the new car, as desired by the complainant, was delivered on 31.12.2010 to the complainant with all tools and accessories,including the second keyand all necessary codes, due to which the complainant did not raise any objections at the time of delivery of the car. No excess payment, as alleged by the complainant, was taken from him. The complainant requested a set of duplicate keys as he had lost the original keys. OP-1 asked for 15-20 days to arrange for the same. This fact has been distorted by the complainant.
- OP-2 sought dismissal of the complaint as OP-2 merely provided the sales and after-sales support through its dealer appointed on Principal to Principal basis. OP-3 is ex-parte.
- In our view, the complainant's case is that he paid an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- towards transportation charges to get his new car from Pune while the same was sourced from AI Motors, New Delhi and the OP-1 executives misrepresented the source of the vehicle. Page no. 30 of the complaint is the copy of the "Debit Note" dated 31.12.2010 filed by the complainant with his complaint. It clarifies that the complainant did indeed pay an amount of Rs.3500/- towards transportation amount, but nowhere has it been found that the car was to be sourced from Pune or somewhere else.
- The complainant further alleged that he had been delivered a used car. He gauged this fact from the wear and tear mark on the rubber pads of the clutch, brake, accelerator, remote key and tyres. However, the complainant raised this issue on 19.01.2011 after taking delivery of the car on 31.12.2010. The complainant admits to having travelled out of stationafter receiving the car and noticing that the car was a used car after his return on 15.01.2011 but has not provided proof of this averment. Neither has the complainant placed on record a whisper of evidence to show that he found scratches on the pads and tyres to substantiate that the car delivered to him was used. The complainant has also not sought an expert opinion independent or through this Forum towards this bald statement.
- The averment regarding the non-receipt of the second key or duplicate key, however, finds clarity in the email dated 10.03.2011 sent by Ms. Ruchika Chawla, CRM of OP-1, who mentions clearly that the complainant raised concerns regarding the duplicate keys of his car purchased in January 2011. But to date, he has not received it, as reflected below:-
First of all we thank you for patronisingTechno Automobiles for the purchase of your favorite car. Please refer to the telephonic conversation regarding your concern of the duplicate keys of your car that you had purchased in Jan 2011. But till the date you didn't received it yet. Sir, in your case we had transfers your concern with your car details to the service station and now they will arrange your duplicate keys. It will directly come from Fiat Head Office. And, it will take 15-20 days to come. As soon as we get your duplicate keys from Head Office we will revert back to you. So it is request you to kindly bear with us till the time. Your co-operation will highly appreciate." - OP-1 has rebutted the case, stating that it was the complainant who lost the second key soon after receiving the car and asked OP-1 to provide a duplicate key and is twisting the email dated 10.03.2011 to suit his narrative.However, OP-1 has not filed any documentary proof towards this averment, which they could have easily done by filing the copy of the list of accessories every customer is given with due signature at the time of delivery of a vehicle, a copy of which the OP-1 must have in their office. Neither has OP-1 filed on record any communication by the complainant requesting them to give him a duplicate key due to the loss of the second key by him. Their statement is, therefore, utterly unsubstantiated.
- Further, regarding the complainant's claim that the OP charged an excess amount of Rs.20,549/-, no proof has been filed to show that these charges were not explained to him at the time of purchase. A blanket statement regarding excess billing without corroborating said averments with cogent proof does not fall within the tenents of law.
- So far as OP-3, the manufacturer of the car in question, is concerned, we feel that OP-3 is undoubtedly vicariously liable in the dealings of OP-1, its authorised dealer, for satisfactory delivery of its vehicles to the buyers as it sells its cars through OP-1 to its customers. Since OP-3 is ex-parte, we find no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of the complainant qua OP-3.
- OP-2 is the sales and service unit, which had no role in deliveringthe car or key in this case. The complainant never got his car serviced by OP-2. Hence, we do not find OP-2 a necessary party in the present case and absolve OP-2 from any deficiency in service if found in the instant complaint.
- In view of the discussion above, we find only OP-1 & 3 guilty of deficiency of service and, accordingly, direct them to jointly and severally pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and security risk he was put under due to the non-delivery of his additional key. They shall also pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 09.10.2024.
| |
