w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Manoj Kumar Joshi v/s Ultimate Automobiles (P) Ltd.

    Appeal No. 106 of 2016

    Decided On, 06 April 2016

    At, Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. DEV RAJ
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Manoj Kumar Joshi. For the Respondent: -----.



Judgment Text

Dev Raj, Member

1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant (now appellant), against the order dated 02.02.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.389 of 2015 was disposed of in the following manner:-

'12] In view of the foregoing discussion, we feel that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Party, but at the same time, we deem it necessary to direct the Opposite Party to do the needful, without charging anything from the complainant, necessary for making such changes in the documents generated by it so that the required changes in the address in the registration certificate of the vehicle in question can be made, as and when the complainant approached them for this purpose. The present complaint is disposed of in these terms, with no order as to cost.'

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased an EON (D-Lite Plus) car from the Opposite Party for a consideration of Rs.2,98,821/- by exchanging his old car. It was further stated that the complainant found from Form No.21 that the car sold in December 2014 was of January 2014 make and it also had a hailine (In fact hairline) scratch near the oil filling inlet. It was further stated that the documents supplied also depicted the wrong address due to which, the car was registered with wrong address. It was further stated that the complainant contacted the Opposite Party and visited its office for making correction in the documents but to his surprise, it refused to do the needful. It was further stated that the Head of the Dealer was also reluctant to meet the complainant. It was further stated that as the validity of the cover note expired on 10.02.2015, the Insurance Agent also refused for the Policy. It was further stated that the car of the complainant was without insurance and he was unable to use the same legally. It was further stated that the complainant sent notice to the Opposite Party on 09.02.2015 to rectify all the issues but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant could not drive the car from 11.02.2015 onwards. It was further stated that when the complainant thought to complain to the Customer Care of Bharti Axa on 05.03.2015, it immediately sent the Policy with correct address to the home of the complainant as well as on email. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed seeking various reliefs.

4. The Opposite Party in its written statement stated that the complainant had taken the vehicle with his open mind and eyes. It was further stated that the complainant was fully aware about the heavy discounts offered in the month of December by the manufacturers of the vehicle, to clear the stocks. It was further stated that the Opposite Party following the instructions of the manufacturer vide email dated 6.10.2014, issued revised price for the sale of the vehicle of the model purchased by the complainant. It was further stated that as per Annexure R-3, the ex-showroom price of the vehicle inclusive of VAT and dealer’s margin was Rs.3,19,787/- whereas the complainant paid only Rs.2,98,821/-, which included cost of the old car as Rs.30,000/- plus exchange benefit of Rs.30,000/-. It was further stated that the complainant was benefitted to the tune of Rs.63,705/- for the purchase of the vehicle in the month of December 2014. It was further stated that the complainant chose the vehicle to his entire satisfaction after duly scrutinizing and inspecting the same, as is evident from Annexure R-4 delivery receipt. It was further stated that the warranty of the vehicle, in question, was to start from the date of purchase i.e. 11.12.2014 and not from the date of manufacture. It was further stated that giving of wrong address and checking particulars of pre-retail invoice was the duty of the complainant, for which, the Opposite Party could not be held liable. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5. The complainant filed replication wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statement of Opposite Party.

6. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7. After hearing the complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, disposed of the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant appeal.

9. We have heard the appellant in person, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the appellant/complainant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter.

11. In Para 5 of his appeal, the appellant/complainant has taken following grounds to assail the impugned order:-

Selling the old make of the car for latest one by keeping complainant in the dark amounted to unfair trade practice.

Not attending to several requests made, by personally visiting office of Opposite Party, to remove the typographical error in the documents and their late supply; Simply agreeing, after one year in the court, did not remove the deficiency, rather it caused more harassment and mental agony by way of litigation.

12. As regards the first issue, the Forum in Para 9 of its order, which is under challenge, observed that with regard to this grievance, the complainant had claimed that he had lost a valuable market price on his vehicle as the same was deemed to be an old vehicle and did not have the same market value, the same being manufactured in the month of January 2014 and sold to him in December 2014. It (Forum) held that the complainant, by his own estimate, had claimed that there was nearly a loss of 10% on the value of the car amounting to Rs.22,411/-, however, the appellant/complainant failed to bring, on record, any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The Forum in Para 10 of its order, further righty held that '……it would have been much better for the complainant to place on record the details of delivery of same type of vehicles by the Opposite Party, so that the issue at hand could be dealt with conclusively. The Opposite Party on its part has voluntarily placed on record the details of inward & outward movement of vehicle (Ann. R-2, dated 4.2.2014) as it has received from the manufacturer, as well as even the details of discounts offered by the parent company (manufacturer) on the category of vehicle, which the complainant had purchased. The document for this purpose is Ann. R-3, which substantiates that the change in CST from 2% to 1% was forwarded and made applicable at the time of sale of vehicle to the complainant. In that given situation, we do not find any substance that the complainant has, in any manner, lost on his investments due to the delivery of vehicle in December 2014, which was manufactured in the month of January 2014.' The appellant, in Para 3 of his rejoinder, admitted that he was given consumer discount. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the appellant in support of his contention that he suffered loss in the sum of Rs.22,411/- on account of purchase of vehicle, in question, in December, 2014 (manufactured in January 2014). Therefore, in our considered opinion, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence, it could not be said that the appellant/complainant suffered losses on this count. As such, his plea to this effect stands rejected.

13. Coming to the grouse of the appellant/complainant regarding non removal of defects in the documents, on account of which, he was not able to move his vehicle from his premises due to wrong address mentioned in the documents and on approaching the respondent/Opposite Party, nothing was done, it may be stated here that the Forum, in Para 11 of its order, held that the complainant received few documents alongwith the vehicle viz. Temporary Registration Certificate, Cover Note of Insurance, Service Tax Invoice and Retail Invoice, as these documents were annexed as Annexures H, I, E, C and G respectively by the complainant with his complaint. The appellant/complainant, while submitting these documents with his application for registration of the vehicle with the Motor Vehicle Registering Authority, must have compared the documents, at the time of filling the said form. Perusal of Annexure H, which is Temporary Registration Certificate, reveals that the same was issued on 11.12.2014 and was valid up to 10.01.2015. As is apparent from copy of Registration Certificate dated 13.01.2015 issued by the Registering Authority (Annexure A-3), the appellant/complainant submitted documents after about a month. As such, the appellant/complainant was having sufficient time to get the documents corrected from the respondent/Opposite Party before submitting them with the Registering Authority. The Forum, thus, rightly observed that there can be minor typographical errors during the normal course of working but as the complainant did not suffer any loss on such score and at the same time, the Opposite Party did not wash its hands of making such changes, there was no deficiency in service. It is also borne out from the impugned order that during the course of arguments, the Coun

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

sel for the respondent/Opposite Party promised to do the needful, as and when the appellant/complainant approached the respondent/Opposite Party by making such necessary amendments and pursue the same with the Motor Vehicle Registration Authority also. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order dated 02.02.2016 passed by the Forum is upheld. 16. We, however, deem it necessary and appropriate to clarify that the respondent/Opposite Party shall take necessary action within 15 days, as and when it is approached by the appellant/complainant in terms of Para 12 of the impugned order. 17. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
O R