BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.169/14.

Date of instt.: 04.09.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: .2015.

Hardeep Singh son of Sh. Ram Pal, r/o H.No.261/16, Nehru Garden Colony, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. L.R. Automobiles, NH-65, Ambala Road, Kaithal-136027, through its proprietor/owner.

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram, Distt. Tamilnadu-602117 through its Managing Director. 

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Rajish Vadhera, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Sunil Polist, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Adv. for Op No.2. 

                       ORDER

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one XCENT CRDiSB SIV pure white car from Op No.1 vide sale certificate dt. 28.04.2014 for a consideration of Rs.6,31,020/-.  It is alleged that at the time of selling the said car to the complainant, the employees of Op No.1 told the complainant that the car has four cylinders and the Op No.1 had charged the amount of these four cylinders from the complainant.  It is further alleged that in the registration certificate issued to the complainant by M.V. Authority, Kaithal, the car is having four cylinders.  It is further alleged that in the booklet issued by the Ops to the complainant at the time of delivery of car, it has been shown that there are three cylinders only.  It is further alleged that the car was also got checked through an expert mechanic lateron, who also told that there are three cylinders.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands because it was well in the knowledge of complainant that the car in dispute was only in three cylinders not in four cylinders as very much explained by the representative of the Op No.1 as-well-as mentioned in the part No.7 of the complaint.  The complainant is only wanted to take the undue benefit of the typographical/clerical mistake on the part of Op No.1, as the clerk of Op No.1 had wrongly mentioned four cylinders instead of three cylinders in form-27 and other documents as-well.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     Op No.2 filed the written statement raising the preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the answering Op is neither necessary nor proper party to the present complaint.  In any event, even if the allegations as made in the complaint is taken as gospel truth, whilst denying, it is submitted that no case or cause of action is made out against the answering Op as all the allegations are made against the dealer, who is neither agent nor employee of the answering Op.  It is submitted that the answering Op operates with all its dealers on a principal-to-principal basis and errors/omission, if any, at the time of retailing or servicing of the car is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.       

4.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CA to Ex.CH and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OPW/1 and documents Ex.OP/A to Ex.OP/C and closed evidence.  Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and document Ex.RW2/B and closed evidence.     

5.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.  

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt. .2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),     (Rajbir Singh),       

                        Member.         Member.