Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/630/2021

Junior Warrant Officer Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vaishali Motors - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Junior Warrant Officer Jagjit Singh S/o Late GC Singh

R/o H.No.3293, Sector 31D, Chandigarh-160030.

.......Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Vaishali Motors through Mr. Rajnish Kumar its Owner/Authorized Signatory having its Office at Viahsali Motors, Sale Purchase & Finance 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 8th floor 15-16, See-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)

5. Volkswegon India Ldt. through its Authorized dealer Lally Motors India Pvt Ltd. Plot No. 72, Industrial Area Phase-1. Chandigarh PIN-160002. (complaint against OP No.5 dismissed as withdrawn  vide order dated 22.11.2022)

(PROFORMA PARTY)

OPPOSITE PARTIES

Per surjeet kaur, Member

     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.  
6. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
7. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
9. It is evident from Annexure A-3 that the odometer reading that while selling the vehicle in question to the complainant by the OPs, the odometer reading was 64359 Kms. to allure him for the purchase of the vehicle in question. Accordingly after going through the particulars of the car the complainant paid Rs.3,95,000/-  to OP No.1 on 31.1.2021 as is evident from Annexure A-5.   But when the vehicle in question started giving problem in the beginning itself, after thorough check up of the same the complainant came to know that the omdometer reading was 1,17,820 km. as on 15.7.2017 as per service record Annexure A-6 at page 29. Meaning thereby the OPs sold the vehicle in question by tampering its odometer reading which is clear cut deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Again as per Annexure A-9 it is evident that the vehicle in question was sold on 20.1.2020  to one Ganpati Motors namely to one Mr. Pawan. Further again one crucial evidence has been placed on record  by way of Annexure A-12 by the complainant during proceedings of the present case vide which OP No.2 has requested the  registering authority  for issuance of NOC and new registering certificate in favour of the complainant. Thus it is clear from all the evidence and documents placed on record that there is deficiency in service on the  part of the OPs.
10.  Undoubtedly, the money was received by OP No.1 for selling the vehicle in question but the documents on record clearly show that the vehicle in question  was in ownership of OP No.2 at the time of purchase by the complainant till the date of issue of NOC. Hence, OP No.2 cannot escape from its liability being the owner of the vehicle  and selling car with tampered odometer and for not providing NOC is also deficiency on its part. Whereas it is observed that the OPs No.1 despite being duly served, failed to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint despite being duly served, which raised a reasonable presumption that the they have failed to render due service to the complainant and have nothing to contradict, meaning thereby that they duly admit the claim of the complainant

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.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.