Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/124/2024

WARRANT OFFICER JAGJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

VAISHALI MOTORS THROUGH MR. RAJNISH KUMAR ITS OWNER /AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Warrant Officer Jagjit Singh S/o Late G.C. Singh, R/o H.No.3293, Sector 31D, Chandigarh-160030.

…..Appellant/Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Vaishali Motors through Mr. Rajnish Kumar its Owner/Authorized Signatory having its Office at Shop S-513, School Block, Shakarpur (Vikas Marg) Delhi-110092.
2. Triveni Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, having its Office at HO Express Trade Tower 8^th  floor 15-16, Sec-18A Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar (UP)
3. Ganpati Motors through Mr. Pavan Rajora its Owner/Authorized Signatory having its Office at Ganpati Motors, Shop No. 2, S-513, School Block, Shakarpur (Vikas Marg) Delhi-110092.
4. OLX India Ldt through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory Office at Ground Floor, Tower 3A, DLF Corporate Park. DLF City, Phase-III, Sector 24, MG Road, Gurugram (HR) PIN-122002.    (PROFORMA PARTY)

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Jagjit Singh, appellant in person.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2024.

Triveni Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd., having its office at HO Express Trade Tower, 8th floor 15-16, Sector 16-A Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar (UP) 201 301.

                                                …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

VERSUS

1. Junior Warrant Officer Jagjit Singh S/o Late GC Singh, R/o H.No.3293, Sector 31-D, Chandigarh-160030.

    …..Contesting Respondent/Complainant.

2. Vaishali Motors through Mr. Rajnish Kumar its Owner/Authorized Signatory having its Office at Shop S-513, School Block, Shakarpur (Vikas Marg) Delhi-110092.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

3. Ganpati Motors through Mr. Pavan Rajora its Owner/Authorized Signatory having its Office at Ganpati Motors, Shop No. 2, S-513, School Block, Shakarpur (Vikas Marg) Delhi-110092.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party No.3

4. OLX India Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory Office at Ground Floor, Tower 3A, DLF Corporate Park. DLF City, Phase-III, Sector 24, MG Road, Gurugram (HR) PIN-122002.   

…..Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.4.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Jagjit Singh, respondent No.1 in person.

Respondents No.2 to 4 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2024.

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                             Vide this order we are disposing of above captioned appeals bearing No.124 of 2024 filed by the Complainant - Warrant Officer Jagjit Singh and Appeal No.141  of 2024 filed by the Opposite party No.2 – Triveni Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. against order dated 07.02.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short ‘District Commission’). Vide the said order, the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint in the following manner:-

“11.    In view of the above discussion, the present consumer  complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs 1 to 3 are directed as under:-

1. to refund Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as prayed for with interest @9% P.A.from the date of filing the instant complaint till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

   12.       This order be complied with by the OPs No.
1 to 3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

  13.      After compliance of order by the OPs No. 1 to 3 the complainant shall return the vehicle in question to them.”

2.         The brief facts as narrated in the impugned order of the District Commission are as under:-

“Briefly stated the complainant who wants to purchase a second  hand car  believing the assurance of OP No.1 with the regard to odometer reading of the car Volkswagen Jetta  and keeping in mind the reputation of OP No.2 purchased the same Volkswagen Jetta   car from OP No.1 for sale consideration of Rs.3,95,000/-  in addition to payment of Rs.12000/- as broker charges and Rs.5000/- NOC to be provided by OP No.1 within 15 days. After 4-5 days complainant observes some unusual noise/sound from the transmission of the car and when complainant took the car to mechanic to find out the problem, the mechanic informed that the flywheel is producing the sound and the complete flywheel kit (flywheel along with clutch plate, pressure plate and release bearing) is to be changed and the same is available in Volkswagen Service center only and will cost around Rs. 60-70,000/-, he also informed that generally the flywheel kit needs to be changed only when the vehicle is likely to be completed more than 1,00,000 Km. Then the complainant felt some in-appropriate/ unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1 and OP No. 2, as due to privacy policy owner only can get the information and other details about the car from manufacturer Volkswagen, then complainant decided to enquire about the car from the company and mailed to company from his email account 

2.   The Opposite Parties NO.1&4 did not turn up despite service of notices, hence Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.4 were proceeded exparte vide orders dated  1.6.2022.

3.    OP No.2 in its reply stated that the the vehicle in question was sold and delivered with all the requisite documents by the answering respondent to M/s Ganpati Motors (opposite party no. 3) way back on 20.01.2020 alongwith 11 more cars and the possession of the said car in question was handed over to M/s Ganpati Motors opposite party no. 3 in terms of delivery receipt dated 20.01.2020 duly signed and executed by Pawan Kumar proprietor of M/s Ganpati Motors i.e. opposite party No.3.  Thus the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP as no cause of action arose against the answering OP. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.

4.  OP No.3 in its reply stated that the complaint is not maintainable against it as no privity of contract  between the answering OP and complainant and neither any service hired by the complainant from the answering OP nor at any time the answering OP participated in any kind of transaction and negotiation took place qua the car in question. Thus the complainant is not a consumer qua the answering OP. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.   The complaint against OP No.5 stands dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.11.2022.”

3.           In appeal bearing No.124 of 2024, complainant is seeking modification of the order of the District Commission to the extent of refund of ₹4,12,000/- in place of ₹3.00 lacs on the ground that the District Commission has overlooked the fact that the said vehicle is with the complainant since last three years and beyond the price of the car which the appellant had paid/spent. It has further been stated that District Commission by deciding the complaint wrongly ordered for returning the said vehicle to the opposite parties.
4. On the other hand in appeal bearing No.141 of 2024, the appellant/opposite party No.2 is seeking setting aside the impugned order on the ground that there is no privity of contract between it and the complainant as the vehicle was sold and delivered with all requisite documents way back on 20.01.2020. It has further been stated that District Commission failed to take into account that after sale of the car to Ganpati Motors, the appellant had no control over the car and if any sale transaction happened between complainant and Vaishali Motors, the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer qua it. It has further been stated that the car was in possession of the third parties i.e. Ganpati Motors and Vaishali Motors for more than one year, therefore, the appellant cannot be held for any kind of deficiency and unfair trade practice.
5. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and going through the material available on record, we are of the considered view that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Based on the documentary evidence on record of District Commission, it seems the complainant has a strong case against the opposite parties including Opposite Party No.2 for selling a vehicle with a tampered odometer reading. This action of theirs definitely constituted both deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on their part. The evidence presented, including Annexures A-3, A-5, A-6, A-9, and A-12, fully supported the complainant's claims. The discrepancy between the odometer reading at the time of sale and the actual reading from service records indicates fraudulent activity on the part of the opposite parties. Furthermore, the involvement of Opposite Party No.2, who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of sale, added to their liability for the tampered odometer reading and failure to provide the necessary documentation, such as the NOC. Given the evidence and the lack of rebuttal from the opposite parties, the District Commission has rightly concluded that Opposite Party No.2 was also at fault and should be held accountable for its actions. As such, Opposite Party No.2 has failed to make out any ground for setting aside the impugned order in so far as its liability is concerned.
6. Now coming to the claim of the complainant in his appeal, it may be stated here that in his complaint, the complainant had sought refund of ₹3.00 lacs as actual cost of the car besides cost of the replacement of fly wheel kit, refund whereof has rightly been ordered by the learned District Commission vide impugned order alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint besides awarding ₹30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and ₹10,000/- as cost of litigation. In our considered opinion that the complainant has adequately been compensated by the learned District Commission and as such, no ground is made out for enhancement in the same. Therefore, this appeal is also liable to be dismissed.
7. For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals i.e.  appeal bearing No.124 of 2024 and Appeal No.141 of 2024 stand dismissed with no order as to cost.
8. A copy of this order be placed in connected appeal bearing No.141 of 2024.
9. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge..
10. Files be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

 28.05.2024.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad