Haryana

Ambala

CC/327/2021

Aashish Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hyundia Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Adit Aggarwal

04 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 327 of 2021   

                                                          Date of Institution         : 21.10.2021   

                                                          Date of decision   :              04.03.2024   

Aashish Goel son of Sh. Narender Goel, resident of House No.57, Housing Board Colony, Ambala Cantt. Haryana

                                                                                                                      ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Hyundia Motors, Irrugattutkottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Naru-602117, through its CEO.

North Regional Office: Unit No.C-113-114, Ist Floor, Office Suites Elante, Plot No.178-178A, Industrial & Business Park Phase I, Chandigarh-160002

2. M/s Smrithi Motors Pvt. Ltd., 12KM Mile Stone, VPO Tepla, Ambala Jagadhari Road, Ambala through its Managing Director/Authorised Representative Mr. Ashwini Kalra;    

                                                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

       Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.        

 

Present:       Shri Adit Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

        Shri Amrit Pal Singh Kahlon, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

        Shri Vishal Mittal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2 alongwith Shri Lakshey Khanna, General Manager.  

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i)      To get the Hyundai verna 1.4 VTVT E Car bearing Engine No. G4LCKU200140, Chassis No. MALC741BLKM169907 registered with RTO Ambala and if the same is not possible now, to replace car with new registered car which the complainant can use and enjoy (cost of verna purchased Rs.8,00,000/- approx.

(ii)     To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and  physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii)    To pay Rs.33,000/- as the cost of litigation.

OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.                         

2.   Brief facts of the case are that on 06.08.2019, the complainant had purchased one Hyundai Verna 1.4 VTVT E car bearing ENGINE No. G4LCKU200140, CHASSIS No. MALC741BLKM169907 Of the OP No. 1 from OP No. 2. The complainant had also given his old Hyundai Santro car to OP N. 2 at the time of delivery of the Verna car, the OP No. 2 had charged margin money of Rs.1,38,038/- including the exchange value of old Santro car of the complainant. The complainant had also got financed the said Verna car from Axis Bank and the Axis Bank paid Rs.7,70,700/- to the OP No. 2 directly and the complainant is repaying the same to the Bank. At the time of selling the Verna car, the OP No. 2 had also arranged the insurance from New India Assurance Company vide Policy No. 11300031190901096527 for Rs.27,742/- which was included in the margin money paid by the complainant to the OP No. 2. The complainant further stated that OP No. 2 through its authorized sales person/manager Mr. Rajiv had intimated that as per rule of the registration authority, the registration of the New Vehicle is to be done through dealer only and the OP No. 2 will get the said Verna car registered with RTO, Ambala and had taken the complete charges and fee for the registration from the complainant, which included in the margin money. Further the OP No. 2 had not issued any document like form 20/21, sale receipt/bill etc. To the complainant and told that all the documents alongwith fee for registration shall be deposited by the OP No. 2 directly with RTO, Ambala and the complainant will receive the registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle within 2-3 months. The OP No. 2 had not even done the temporary registration of the vehicle and had not issued the temporary number to the complainant. The complainant believed upon the assurances of the OP No. 2 that the OP No. 2 will get the vehicle registered with RTO, Ambala after depositing the requisite documents and fee but the OP No. 2 failed to do so. Thereafter, whenever the complainant contacted the OP No. 2 and expressed his grievance about non receipt of RC of Verna car, the OP No. 2 assured the complainant that they had done their part of the duty and RC will be received by him soon. In the month of March, 2021, there was lockdown due to Pandemic Covid 19 and after that complainant contacted the OP No. 2 for the RC of the vehicle in question and when the complainant raised suspicion, despite passage of one and half year, he had not received the RC of the vehicle. Then he asked the OP No. 2 to give the receipt/counterfoil of the file submitted by the OP No. 2 with the RTO, Ambala. The above mentioned sales person/manager of the OP No. 2 namely Mr. Rajiv started demanding illegal gratification for getting his car registered. It is evident that OP No. 2 had not applied for registration of the vehicle of the complainant and the OP No. 2 had usurped the money charged from the complainant for fee, file charges and other charges for getting the vehicle registered. Due to non registration of the vehicle, the complainant is unable to use and enjoy the car. The complainant can not even drive the car as the same is illegal to drive the car without registration and the same is lying parked since the expiry of the registration period. The complainant got served a legal notice to the OP No. 2 but the OP No. 2 did not reply. Thereafter, the complainant had sent an E-mail to the OP No. 1 expressing his grievances against the wrong deeds done by the OP No. 2 and same was replied through E-mail by Sales Manager of OP No. 2, wherein it is stated that the registration of the vehicle of the complainant cannot be done as it is prohibited by the Government of India and they will still cooperate regarding the same but no solution has been addressed. Hence, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to no locus standi to file  the present complaint against OP No.1 as no cause action arose him to file the present complaint against OP No.1 and maintainability, not cover under the definition of consumer as defined Consumer Protection Act, 2019  and no allegations qua OP No.1 has been made by complainant, the OP NO.1 operates with all its dealers including OP No.2 on “ principal to principal basis and not on “Principal to Agent “ basis, cares are purchased by the concerned dealers such as OP No.2 and others, from OP NO. No.1 against payments and thereafter, the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customer under retail invoice, the complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, no locus standi etc. On merits, it is stated that  the complainant had approaced and induced the OP No.2 for purchase of new car Verna and as per his inducement of complainant, the answering OP has agreed to sell the Car on 06.08.2019, of Rs.8,58,000/- and the complainant got financed his new car from Axis Bank and on 16.08.2019, the complainant paid Rs.7,70,700/-. At the time of purchasing of new car, complainant requested the OP No.2 that he has to avail the facility of loan from Axis Bank and he will make the complete payment after one week. Believing upon the words of the complainant, the OP No.2 handed over the delivery of the new car on 06.08.2019. Complainant requested to the Op No.1 to exchange his old Santro Car bearing Regn. No.HR-01U-7662, when the OP No.2 asked for RC of the old car, then it comes to know that the said old Santro car is hypothecated with bank and cannot be re-sale without removal of hypothecation. Then the OP No.2 requested the complainant that hypothecation should be removed and then only the car will re-sale and the value of the old Santro Car will be adjusted in his account after removal of hypothecation from the RC. OP No.2 requested the complainant to make the complete payment of Rs.8,58,000/- of the Verna new car. Complainant request the OP No.2 that he will make the payment very soon. OP No.2 has received only voucher of Rs.7,70,000/- from the Axis Bank on 16.08.2019 and did not make the remaining amount alongwith the expenses of registration etc. The total amount of Rs.87,300/- were due towards the complainant of OP No.2. It is further stated that since the complainant has failed to furnish the Form 35 from the Bank and has failed to deposit the fee of Registration of Car, despite of request made by the OP No.2 and the complainant only deposited the Form-35 with the  OP No.4 in the last week of Janurary 2020, then the OP No.4 adjusted Rs.65,000/- as value of old Santro Car in the account of complainant further intimated to the complainant that now the complainant have to pay the fine of obtaining the Registration Certificate and remaining balance of Rs.22,300/- as it is the rule of the Registration Authority that after one month, the customer have to pay late fee of every day to the concerned department, but the complainant despite of requests of the OP No.2 did not pay the late fee charges of registration of RC and the balance amount due from him of his new car, rather himself lingering on the matter with one pretext or the other. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

5.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Shri Nitin Gupta, working as Assistant Manager (Legal and Secretarial) with M/s Hyundai Motor Limited (OP No. 1) having its office at Plot No. C-11 & 11A, City Centre, Urban Estate-2, Sector 29, Gurugram Haryana as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP no.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Ashwani Kalra Director of M/s Samrithi Motors Pvt. Ltd., 12KM Mile Stone, VPO Tepla, Ambala, Jagadhri Road, Ambala as Annexure OP2/A and documents as Annexure R2/1 to R2/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP No.1.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased the Verna car 1.4 VTVT E car from OP No. 2 on 06.08.2019 and had given his old Hyundai Santro car to OP No.2 and at the time of delivery of the Verna car, the complainant paid margin money of Rs.1,38,038/- including the exchange value of old Santro car. The complainant got the said car financed from Axis Bank Ltd., Ambala and the Axis Bank paid Rs.7,70,700/- directly to the OP No.2. The complainant is repaying the said loan amount. The disbursement cum delivery order issued by Bank is Annexure C-1. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the OP No.2 had arranged the insurance of the said car through New India Assurance Company Limited under Policy No. 11300031190901096527 dated 06.08.2019 and the premium of the said Policy amounting to Rs.27,742/- was included in the margin money. It has been further argued that the through its authorized sales person/manager Mr. Rajiv had intimated the complainant that as per rule of the registration authority, the registration of the New Vehicle is to be done through dealer only and the OP No. 2 will get the said Verna car registered with RTO, Ambala and had taken the complete charges and fee for the registration from the complainant, which included in the margin money. Further the OP No. 2 had not issued any document like form 20/21, sale receipt/bill etc. To the complainant and told that all the documents alongwith fee for registration shall be deposited by the OP No. 2 directly with RTO, Ambala and the complainant will receive the registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle within 2-3 months. The OP No. 2 had not even done the temporary registration of the vehicle and had not issued the temporary number to the complainant. The complainant believed upon the assurances of the OP No. 2 that the OP No. 2 will get the vehicle registered with RTO, Ambala after depositing the requisite documents and fee but the OP No. 2 failed to do so. Thereafter, whenever the complainant contacted the OP No. 2 and expressed his grievance about non receipt of RC of Verna car, the OP No. 2 assured the complainant that they had done their part of the duty and RC will be received by him soon. In the month of March, 2021, there was lockdown due to Pandemic Covid 19 and after that complainant contacted the OP No. 2 for the RC of the vehicle in question and when the complainant raised suspicion, despite passage of one and half year, he had not received the RC of the vehicle. Then he asked the OP No. 2 to give the receipt/counterfoil of the file submitted by the OP No. 2 with the RTO, Ambala. The above mentioned sales person/manager of the OP No. 2 namely Mr. Rajiv started demanding illegal gratification for getting his car registered. It is evident that OP No. 2 had not applied for registration of the vehicle of the complainant and the OP No. 2 had usurped the money charged from the complainant for fee, file charges and other charges for getting the vehicle registered. Due to non registration of the vehicle, the complainant is unable to use and enjoy the car. The complainant cannot even drive the car as the same is illegal to drive the car without registration and the same is lying parked since the expiry of the registration period. The complainant got served a legal notice to the OP No. 2 but the OP No. 2 did not reply. Thereafter, the complainant had sent an E-mail to the OP No.1 expressing his grievances against the wrong deeds done by the OP No. 2 and same was replied through E-mail by Sales Manager of OP No.2, wherein it is stated that the registration of the vehicle of the complainant cannot be done as it is prohibited by the Government of India and they will still cooperate regarding the same but no solution has been addressed. It has been prayed that complaint may be allowed.

8.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that the present complaint against the Op No.1 is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Commission because the Hyundai Motors Ltd operates with all its dealer including OP No. 2 on “principal-to-principal” basis and not on Principal-To-Agent” basis meaning thereby error/omission/misrepresentations etc, if any, at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. In the present case, the complainant purchased the car from OP No. 2 i.e. the dealer who sold the car to the complaint. The OP No. is manufacturer is not necessary party and has been arrayed unnecessarily. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP No. 1. Therefore, complaint filed by the complainant against OP No.1 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

9.                 Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that the complainant purchased the car from OP No. 1 on 06.08.2019 and given old Hyundai Santro car to the OP No. 2. The counsel for the OP No. 2 further argued that complainant approached and induced the OP No. 2 for purchase of new Verna car and as per inducement of complainant, the OP No. 2 has agreed to sell the car Verna on 06.08.2019 for a sum of Rs.8,58,000/-. The complainant got the said new car financed from Axis Bank Ltd., Ambala and the complainant through Bank paid to Rs.7,70,700/- to the OP No. 2 on 16.08.2019. At the time of purchasing of new car Verna, the complainant requested the OP No.2 that he has to avail the facility of loan from Axis Bank and he will make the complete payment after one week. Believing upon the words of the complainant, the OP No.2 handed over the delivery of the new Verna car on 06.08.2019. The complainant requested to the OP No.2 to exchange his old Santro car bearing registration No. HR-01U-7662, when the OP No.2 asked for RC of the old car, then it comes to know that the said old Santro car is hypothecated with bank and cannot be re-sale without removal of hypothecation. The OP No.2 told the complainant to make the complete payment of Rs.8,58,000/- of the new Verna car.  The complainant deposited the Form 35 with the OP No.2 in the last week of January,2020 thereafter OP No.2 adjusted Rs.65000/- as value of old Santro Car in the account of the complainant and asked the complainant that he has to pay the fine of obtaining Registration Certificate and to make the remaining balance amount of Rs.22,300/- as it is the rule of the Registration Authority that after one month, the customer has to pay the late fee of every day to the concerned department. It is further averred that the complainant himself responsible for non registration of his car as he failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.87300/- alongwith penalty of late fee. Since 31.03.2021, the government   and the complainant did not make the remaining amount alongwith the expenses of registration etc.  It has been prayed the complaint of the complainant may be dismissed with costs. 

10.              From the perusal of case as well as after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties, in the present case the admitted facts are that the complainant approached the OP No.2 for purchase Hyundai verna 1.4 VTVT E Car in a exchange of old hypothecated Santro car after getting new car financed from Axis bank Ltd for a Rs.7,70,700/-.  The facts in dispute are that plea complainant of that he has paid margin money of Rs.1,38,038 in cash to the OP No.2 but despite receiving entire payment, OP No.2 had given the new Verna car to the complainant without temporary number and without getting it registered with the RTO Ambala. On the other hand , the plea of the OP No.2 is that the complainant has not make the balance payment of Rs.22,300/- and the complainant also not made payment for temporary number as well as the complainant has not paid the charges for permanent registration certificate.

5.           It may be stated here that perusal of record and  also from the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties, it is coming out that the contesting parties are leveling allegations against each other i.e. the complainant approached the OP No.2 for purchase Hyundai verna 1.4 VTVT E Car in a exchange of old hypothecated Santro car after getting new car financed from Axis bank Ltd for a Rs.7,70,700/- and he has paid margin money of Rs.1,38,038 in cash to the OP No.2 but despite receiving entire payment, OP No.2 had given the new Verna car to the complainant without temporary number and without getting it registered with the RTO Ambala. On the other hand , the plea of the OP No.2 is that the complainant has not make the balance payment of Rs.22,300/- and the complainant also not made payment for temporary number as well as the complainant has not paid the charges for permanent registration certificate. Under these circumstances, the complainant has to prove that as to whom the payment of Rs.1,38,038/- (in cash) has been made, but he failed to provide any document in that regard. It is significant to mention here that we have gone through the said documents and did not find anything mentioned therein, to hold that the amount of Rs.1,38,038/- had been received by the OP No.2 from the complainant in respect of margin money of the new verna car. Thus, from the sequence of events narrated above, we are of the considered view, that to ascertain as to whether, OP No.2, at any stage, have received any amount from the complainant towards the margin money of new verna car in question, whether the alleged payment of Rs.1,38,038/- was made as per oral version stated by the complainant to the OP No.2, whether the complainant paid the temporary charges as well as permanent registration charges of  new car to the OP No.2 as alleged by OP No.2 and whether there was any deficiency in service for non providing registration certificate of new verna car on the part of the OP No.2, are complicated questions which will need voluminous evidences and witnesses of all the persons involved in the transaction in question, which cannot be done before this Commission in summary proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRAI Foods Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company & Ors., III (2012) CPJ 17 (SC),  under similar circumstance has also observed:

"6.  The only question to be decided is, when should this jurisdiction be exercised by the Commission.  In our view the Commission should address itself to the quantity of the claim, the nature of the claim, the nature of the evidence which would be required to be submitted both in respect of the claim and the damages suffered and the nature of the legal issues before deciding that the matter ought to be decided by the Civil Courts in the regular course. It is not disputed that the Consumer Forum has been set up to grant speedy remedy.  The Consumer Forums have been given the responsibility of achieving this object.  They were not meant to duplicate the Civil Court, and subject the litigants to delays which have become endemic in the Civil Courts.

7.  Although the reason given in the impugned order of the Commission for referring the present matter to the Civil Court is cryptic, we have been through the records filed before us and are satisfied that the Commission's decision was correct.  There is no doubt having regard to the nature of the claim, the large amount of damages claimed, and the extensive inquiry into the evidence which would be necessary in order to resolve the disputes between the parties that this is not a matter to be decided summarily at all"

11.                  Since, this complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law, as such, voluminous evidence would be required to reach to any conclusion and the same is not possible before this Commission where proceedings are essentially summary in nature. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed being not maintainable before this Commission.  However, complainant is at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate civil court, if so desires and may seek condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the time spent before this Commission. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 04.03.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President