Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/200

VED PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CARS.24 COM - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

 

Complaint Case No.200/2017

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ved  Prakash R/o  B-10, Shivam Apartment, D Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi – 110018                                                                  ........Complainant
	Versus

1.Manager/Authorised person

Cars 24.com,

Prem Nagar, Above Syndicate Bank,

Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058

 

2. Manager/Authorised person

Cars 24.com.

Plot No.120, Institutional Area,

Sector 44, Gurgaon-122002                                               .............Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

06.04.2017 29.08.2022     29.09.2022

 

 

CORAM

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Present: Complainant in person

 

ORDER

Per: Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Brief facts leading to filing of the present complaint are enumerated below:

1. Complainant submits that OP.1 and 2 are engaged in the business of sale/purchase of used cars. Complainant states that he was allured by the adulatory advertisements on the website namely www.cars24.com of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had made big claims towards Focus, Convenience, Fairness and Safety in dealing with used cars. It was further assured in the website by the opposite parties that they guarantee the hassle free transfer of ownership of the vehicle.  Believing upon the best services as claimed in the  website by the opposite parties, the complainant  booked an appointment with OP1 vide appointment ID No.1000537898 for 09.06.2016 at 11.30AM in the office of OP.1  and sold his Maruti 800 car bearing  registration number DL 9 CE 3366 to it.  It is further stated by the complainant that after selling the car to  OP No.1, its representative assured complainant that the transferred R.C. in the name of new owner will be sent to him within three months from 9th of June, 2016 but even after lapse of   three months as promised by the opposite parties, complainant didn't get the transferred RC  and as such complainant sent numerous reminders to both  the OPs, requesting them to change his name and transfer the RC in the name of new owner and on  02.09.2016 complainant was informed by the opposite parties that the vehicle in question has been sold and it will take about 45 days to transfer the ownership. However, to the utter astonishment of the complainant, after the lapse of 45 days, the complainant didn't get the transferred RC and as such complainant again contacted OP.1 telephonically on 23/24.10.2016 and their representative namely Amandeep Singh assured that complainant will receive the copy of transferred RC on or before 13.12.2016,  but it did not happen.  Complainant then called up Gurgaon office of opposite parties i.e. opposite party no. 2 and they assured that complainant will receive a call from them, but complainant never received any call from them till today. Complainant got only one call from the above said Amandeep Singh from Pitampura Branch, New Delhi but he also gave false assurance to complainant regarding the change of ownership in the R.C.
2. It is contended by the complainant that the opposite parties have not changed the ownership/RC in the name of new owner and complainant apprehends that the same  is still registered  in his name, which is gross negligence on the part of OPs  and further they have violated  guidelines for transfer of vehicle registration under Motor Vehicle Act. It is worthwhile to add here that the RC has not been transferred to the name of its new owner and if the same is still registered in the name of complainant, the act and conduct of opposite parties  tantamounts to breach of agreement and negligence on their part and they, severally and jointly, would be responsible if vehicle in question is involved in some major incident after 09.06.2016. In this regard the complainant  also issued a legal notice dated 7.1.2017 to the opposite parties through his counsel, which the OPs duly received but have neither redressed the grievance of the complainant nor given any reply. The complainant also requested the opposite parties through e-mail messages to do the needful  and on  02.09.2016(sic 09.02.2016) the complainant received a reply from the OPs that they  regret for the "inconvenience” caused to the complainant and they further assured the complainant that the needful will be done as early as possible, but till today the opposite parties failed to do the needful.
3. It is stated  by the complainant that the opposite parties are guilty of providing deficient service to him and also for adopting unfair trade practice. Due to the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate complainant, besides settling the issue of transfer of ownership of the complainant to the new owner in the RC of the vehicle . By way of this complaint, the following reliefs are sought:

i) Direction be issued to the opposite parties to release the registration certificate of the vehicle after substituting the name of complainant.

ii) Direction be issued to the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and damages on account of mental pain and agony and harassment.

iii) To pay Rs.5500/- as expenses qua the proceedings.

4. The complainant filed with the complaint, copy of the advertisement published on the website of OPs, delivery receipt of his Maruti 800 car, authorisation letter in favour of OPs, mail dated 02.09.2016 received from the OPs, copy of legal notice dated 07.1.2017 sent to OPs.
5. Upon notice being issued to the OPs, reply was filed by them  in which it was submitted that  the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived and abuse of law, hence is liable to be dismissed. It was admitted by the OPs   that the complainant  had sold his car to them for a sum of Rs.32,500/- and just to extort huge amount of Rs.50,000/-, the present case is filed by the complainant.
6.  OPs took the objection that  this  Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case as the Regd. Office of the Opposite party is situated at Gurugram, Haryana.   It was further contended that  the present case is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has failed to file case against the necessary party i.e. Mr. Hardeep Singh, sole proprietor of  R.S. MOTORS at: A6/66, Sector-16, ROHINI, New DelhiI-110085, who had purchased the vehicle of the complainant from the OPs and this fact was disclosed by the OPs to the complainant. According to OPs, said Mr. Hardeep Singh had failed to get transferred the vehicle of the complainant and therefore, the OPs  had to file a suit for Specific Performance and Mandatory Injunction against said Mr. Hardeep Singh and the said suit  is presently pending in the court of Ms. Akriti, Civil Judge, Gurugram. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.
7. OPs submitted that on the first enquiry from the complainant, they informed to him about  the issuance of NO objection Certificate (NOC) by the concerned RTO for the vehicle in question and a copy of which was also shared with the complainant. It shall be imperative to mention here that for any vehicle which has to be transferred from one State to another State, the only provision available is by taking an NOC from the concerned RTO which is issued by the concerned RTO to the RTO of the other State where the vehicle has to be re-registered. In this case as well, the requisite provision was initiated by the end buyer  who preferred to have the car re-registered in the State of Punjab.  It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no provision under the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules or any mechanism from where any person can obtain further knowledge of the status of the vehicle, subsequent to the issuance of NOC pertaining to confirming the re-registration of the vehicle. Therefore, the OPs had already revealed and/or informed to the complainant the status of the vehicle pertaining to re-registration to the best extent possible as per the applicable law. There is no other provision under the relevant applicable laws and rules wherein the OPs and/or any person could confirm the re-registration of the vehicle hence the OPs have communicated and shared the status of re-registration of the vehicle with the complainant within the applicable and/or available legal avenues. Therefore the OPs had not committed any deficiency so alleged by the complainant in his complaint.
8. OPs denied that their representative  had assured the complainant that the transferred R.C. in the name of new owner will be sent to him within 3 months from 09/06/2016, i.e. the date of sale of vehicle to OPs. However, OPs admitted that an email was sent by their officers to the complainant wherein they had sought 45 days to transfer the RC in favour of new owner.  OPs  specifically denied   that the complainant had contacted their employee Mr. Amandeep Singh on  23/24.10.2016 in their Delhi office  or their  office  at Gurugram.
9.  OPs further denied that they  acted in a negligent manner and violated guidelines for transfer of vehicle registration under Motor Vehicle Act. It was  further denied by the OPs that  their act and conduct  tantamounts to breach of agreement and negligence on their part. It is submitted that the delivery receipt was duly given to the complainant in which it was clearly mentioned that in future if the vehicle is  involved in any accident,  then it will be the liability of the OP company.
10. OPs denied that they are guilty of providing deficient service to the complainant and also for adopting unfair trade practice, for which they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant  on account of causing mental pain and inconvenience.  OPs also denied having received any legal notice dated 07/01/2017 from the complainant.
11. Along with the reply, OPs filed on record certificate of  incorporation  of the OP company, copy of Board resolution authorising their officer to  sign the affidavit filed with the reply, copy of latest vehicle details as per RTO records, copy of mail dated 02.09.2016 sent  by the OPs to the complainant, copy of the suit filed by the OPs in the Gurgaon Court, copy of ID of end buyer of the vehicle of the complainant, i.e. Amandeep Chhabra of Muktsar(Punjab).
12.  Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant. Along with the affidavit, the complainant filed the whatsapp  intimation  from OP No1 confirming the appointment of complainant with them for sale of his car, copy of address location of OP.1,    copy of  ‘Times of India’ newspaper clipping  dated  28.12.2017  to prove his case  that  if  any accident/mishap occurs with the vehicle which is still registered in the name of the registered owner even after sale to its new owner,  he/she can be hauled up, copy of newspaper clipping of ‘HINDU’ newspaper dated 23.01.2017  carrying the heading “transfer vehicle to buyer’s name after it is sold” , containing the story of one Mt. Mumtaz Ali Khan of Bengaluru who was  framed by the Traffic Police for violation of traffic rules by the rider(new owner) which was sold  about 10 years back by Mr. Khan and its registration document was still showing him as owner in the records.
13. OPs also filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the   documents filed on record as Ex. P.W.1/A, 1/B, 1/D and  1/E.  
14. Written arguments were also filed by the parties.  Complainant filed along with the  written arguments, citations of various judicial pronouncements in which it was held that  in case an accident or mishap occurs, it is the registered owner whose name appears in the records of RTO, who shall be held liable for any damages/compensation to be paid to the third party and not the new owner of the vehicle.
15. Oral arguments of the complainant were heard on 29.08.2022 and the orders  reserved.  Complainant refuted the objection of OPs that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to try the present complainant on the ground that the appointment for sale of his vehicle was given for the address of OP.1.  Even the delivery receipt issued to the complainant  by the OP.1 carries the address of OP.1. Complainant rebutted the allegation of OPs that they had ever  informed him about the new purchaser of his Maruti 800 car,  Mr. Hardeep Singh.  He also denied that he was aware of any suit/case for specific performance filed by the OPs against said Mr. Hardeep Singh.  Complainant submitted that it is all an afterthought just to cover up their misdeeds by the OPs. Since the complainant was never informed about the purchaser of his vehicle, there was no occasion for him to implead said Mr. Hardeep Singh as a necessary party  in the complaint.   Assuming for the sake of arguments that the complainant was informed about the purchaser of his vehicle, this had nothing to do with him as he had sold the vehicle to OPs and not to Mr. Hardeep Singh. Complainant submitted that  OPs were duty bound to get the vehicle registered in the name of new purchaser.  Further, Even if it is assumed that the suit was filed sometime in 2017, the complainant was never apprised about  latest  status of said case even till date.  This shows clear negligence and deficiency  as also unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in keeping the complainant in dark all through.  The OPs cannot shy away from their responsibility of getting the ownership of the vehicle  transferred in the name of new owner.  Complainant requested that the vehicle sold by him to the OPs must be got registered in the name of new owner and  a copy of the RC of the vehicle be provided to him.  He also sought compensation for the harassment faced by him  which led him to file the present complaint.
16. OPs  did not appear on 29.08.2022 when oral arguments were advanced by the complainant.  We have gone through the pleadings filed on record and the oral arguments advanced by the complainant. We proceed to  decide the case in terms of provisions of  Section 38(3)(c) of the  CP Act, 2019.
17. We may firstly deal with the preliminary objection taken by the OPs that this Commission does not have territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint.  In this regard it is relevant to quote the appropriate provision under the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under which the present complaint was filed, as under:

 

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum—(1)    xxxxxxxx. 

 (2)   A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)   the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)   any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)   the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 

 

18. Having gone through the above quoted definition of Section 11(2) of the CP Act, 1986, we find that OPs are also carrying on business from their Branch office (OP.1) which is   within the jurisdiction of this Commission.   This fact is evident from the  whatsapp  message received by the complainant from  the office of OP.1 only for a meeting on 09.06.2022 at 11.30AM  upon his booking the online appointment for sale of his Maruti 800 vehicle  vide Appointment ID No.1000537898.   Further the delivery receipt received by the  complainant from the OPs also mentions the address of OP.1.  Further the cause of action  arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Even the area of residence of complainant comes within the jurisdiction of this Commission which confers this jurisdiction to this Commission Under Section 34(2)(d) of the new Act of 2019.
19.  In view of our above finding, the objection raised by the OPs in regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to hear this complainant is unfounded and not tenable in the eye of law prevalent at the relevant time.
20. Further, having gone through the  pleadings filed on record by the rival parties, we find that  no document has been placed on record by the OPs to show that the complainant was  informed well in advance, as alleged by OPs, about the filing of the case by the OPs against the new purchaser of the car in the Gurgaon Court. No where in the delivery receipt issued to the complainant,  the name of new purchaser finds mention. The complainant is right in saying that there was no occasion for him to implead said Mr. Hardeep Singh, whose particulars were not known to him at any stage. No copy of NOC as alleged in para 8 of the reply  has  been placed on record by the OPs to show their bona fide . Even after filing of the said suit by the OPs against the new purchaser, they never bothered to inform  the complainant about its  status whether the same has been decided or not. It was a duty cast on the OPs to keep the complaint abreast of the latest development in the case.  Atleast no such correspondence  to that effect has been placed on record.   Had the complainant been informed about all this, the occasion to file the present complainant may not have arisen.  All these  shortcomings on the part of OPs explicitly prove deficiency  in service, carelessness  and negligence on their part for which they are held liable.
21.     As per the OPs, the suit against  said Mr. Hardeep Singh was filed in the year 2017.  It is almost five years now and  we  hope that the same must have been decided by now.
22. Nevertheless, the complaint is allowed against the  OPs who are held guilty of negligence and deficiency in service in not being able to transfer the ownership of the vehicle of the complainant in the name of new owner.   In case the suit filed by the OPs  against said Mr.Hardeep Singh, who purchased the vehicle of the complainant has been decided in favour of OPs,   immediate steps be taken to transfer the ownership  of the vehicle in question in favour of the new purchaser and a copy of the RC be issued to the complainant.   If the case is still continuing, the OPs are duty bound to keep the complainant informed of the progress of the case.
23. For the inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant in taking the hassles to sell his vehicle through the OPs and to get the RC of the vehicle transferred in the name of new purchaser, the OPs are  directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Let this order be complied with within thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.  

  A copy of this order shall be supplied to parties to the dispute free of cost  under Regulation 21 of CPR, 2020 on a written requisition/application being made by them in the name of  President of this Commission.

 

 

 

 

RIDHA JINDAL      ANIL KOUSHAL             SONICA MEHROTRA

MEMBER                   MEMBER                          PRESIDENT