| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 71 of 1-04-2019 Decided on : 18-1-2022 Gurjit Singh aged about 35 years S/o Sh. Tejwant Singh R/o Village Fatehpur, Tehsil Sardulgarh, Distt. Mansa. ........Complainant Versus M/s. Malwa Motors, Authorized Dealer Ve Commercial, Vehicle Ltd. Near P.G.R Market, G.T. Road, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. Through its owner Marketing Head Quarter & Works, Ve Commerical Vehicles Ltd., (A Volvo Group and Eicher Motors Joint Venture), 102, Industrial Area No. 1, Pithampur Distt. Dhar (M.P.) - 454775 through its M.D./Chairman (deleted vide order dated 3-4-2019)
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. V K Goel, Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh. Harraj Singh, Advocate for OP No. 1 OP No. 2 deleted. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Gurjit Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Malwa Motors and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 1 allured him to purchase Eicher School Bus. The complainant visited the agency of opposite party No. 1 at Rampura Phul alongwith his friend to discuss about features of Eicher Company made School Bus. After discussions, complainant showed his inability to purchase the bus as its price was very high. The opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that he need not to worry about its price as they will arrange loan from Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company. The opposite party No. 1 immediately called employee/agent of above said finance company at their agency who apprised him about the requirements, loan repayment, time/years and also its interest and asked the complainant to visit agency of opposite party No. 1 alongwith down payment and the finance company will immediately pass the loan on very same day. It is alleged that on the last day of March, 2017 complainant with his friend alongwith required documents, as demanded by the finance company, visited opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 immediately after getting the loan sanctioned, made delivery challan of new Eicher School Bus bearing Model No. 10.75E Bus HB PS BS3 SCL SRL ABS Colour or colours of body golden yellow type of body bus superline SCH, bearing Chassis No. MC2A5ERTOGJ352469, Engine No. E413CDGH104161, Model 2017 amounting Rs. 10,04,417/- & VAT amounting to Rs. 1,32,583/- + TCS Tax 1% 11,370/- i.e. total amount of the vehicle was Rs. 11,48,370/-. The opposite party No. 1 issued Invoice No. VS/00211 dated 31-3-2017 in the name of complainant under party No. 1, Form No. 22-A, Form No. 21 (Sale Certificate), delivery receipt, Temporary No. bearing PB-03(T) AH-9404 and also insured the said vehicle from Chola MS General Insurance after getting paid Rs. 47,934/- from complainant. Chola MS Issued Insurance Policy No. 3373/00487793/000/00 dated 31-3-2017 to 30-3-2018. It is also alleged that thereafter the complainant was to start plying the vehicle to carry the students of Baba Farid Public High School, Sahenwali Road, Jhunir (Mansa) on contract basis. It is further alleged that complainant within sipulated period approached opposite party No. 1 for registration of vehicle with Registration Authority (RTA), Bathinda and paid requisite amount to opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that they will make a call to him as and when they received RC of the vehicle. The complainant visited the opposite party No. 1 time and again and requested them to handover RC to him but the opposite party kept on lingering the matter on the pretext that bill of the vehicle was not reflecting online portal and as soon as, the bill of the vehicle will reflect on online, RC will be made immediately. The complainant asked opposite party No. 1 to get the RC made within 15 days otherwise return RC fee deposited by him. The complainant further alleged that thereafter opposite party No.1 returned back the original bills of the vehicle to the complainant without returning RC fee and conveyed to complainant that bills are not reflecting on online portal. The complainant asked the opposite party No. 1 to return his RC fee but they replied that they immediately deposited the RC fee with registration authority but its receipt has been misplaced. The complainant also alleged that he alongwith documents of the vehicle approached the agent of RTA office for getting the RC made and filled the form. When agent of RTA office uploaded the bills of vehicle online, he came to know that engine No's last digit does not compare/tally with online bill as on original bill last digit of engine number is 1 whereas on online it was shown as 9 and also model of the vehicle of showing 2016 instead of 2017. The agent of RTA office told the complainant that the vehicle in question is BS-3 i.e. pollution effected one and its RC cannot be made till the correction in bill is made as engine number mentioned on bill should match with number reflecting on online portal. The complainant alleged that due to non-registration of the vehicle, he could not ply the same and it is lying parked in his house since long. Due to said act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension , agony and financial loss. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to correct the engine number of the school bus in question in the original Invoice/Bill dated 31-3-2017 as per online engine No. E413CDGH104169 and also award any other additional alternative and consequential relief. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted from the array of the opposite parties vide order dated 3-4-2019. The opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party No. 1 raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi and cause of action; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint; complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, the opposite party No. 1 denied that they allured the complainant to purchase school bus of Eicher company rather complainant purchased the said bus as per his own convenience and choice with a pre-determined mind. It has been pleaded that opposite party No. 1 never allured the complainant to avail loan from Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company rather he had himself approached opposite party No. 1 through said finance company for the purchase of vehicle by taking loan. Accordingly, complainant got said school bus financed from Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., It is admitted that complainant purchased the school bus from the show room of opposite party No. 1 by taking loan from Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that engine number, chassis number and model of the bus were filled in the bill as provided by opposite party No. 2. The complainant never approached opposite party No. 1 for registration of school bus in the name of complainant rather at the time of purchase of said vehicle, the complainant had taken original bills of the said vehicle on the pretext that he will get the vehicle in question registered in his name with RTA on his own. The complainant never deposited any fee with opposite party No.1 for registration. It has been further pleaded that real problem is in the engine number as last digit of the engine number mis-matched with the engine number mentioned on the invoice and the said fault was on the part of the company i.e. opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 reported the matter to opposite party No. 2 without any delay and the same has already been got correcterd from opposite party No. 2. The complaint of the complainant has been got resolved as soon as possible but the complainant has filed this false complaint in order to harass the opposite parties. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of Invoice (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Form No. 22-A & Form 21 (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of Form F & Form No. 22 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of delivery receipt (Ex. C-5), photocopy of temporary R.C. of vehicle (Ex. C-6), photocopy of policy schedule cum certificate (Ex. C-7), photocopy of policy schedule (Ex. C-8), photocopy of motor endorsement schedule (Ex. C-9), photocopy of certificates (Ex. C-10 & Ex. C-11), photocopy of Form No. 20 (Ex. C-12), photocopy of scanned copy of engine of vehicle (Ex. C-13), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-14) and affidavit dated 3-4-2019 (Ex. C-15). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence photocopy of e-mails (Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/13) and affidavit dated 22-8-2019 of Jaspal Singh (Ex. OP/1-14). The opposite party No. 1 also tendered photocopy of R.C. of vehicle (Ex. OP-1/15) in additional evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, the grudge of the complainant is that last digit of engine number of vehicle, purchased by him from opposite party No. 1, was wrongly mentioned on the Invoice due to which, engine number did not match with the engine number reflecting on online portal and complainant could not get his vehicle registered with RTA due to this fault/lapse on the part of the opposite parties. In the prayer clause, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to get corrected engine number of the school bus in question in the original Invoice dated 31-3-2017 and any other additional alternative and consuequential relief. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 1 admitted the discrepancy in Invoice, as detailed above, but the pleading of opposite party No. 1 is that this fault was on the part of opposite party No. 2. During proceedings of this case, opposite party No. 1, tendered in additional evidence photocopy of registration certificate of the vehicle in question. Thus, it is proved on file that necessary correction has been made by the opposite parties and thereafter complainant got his vehicle registered with registering authority. Admittedly complainant purchased the vehicle/school bus in question on 31-3-2017 vide Invoice Ex. C-1. Photocopy of R.C. is Ex. OP-1/15. A persual of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6 reveals that last digit of engine number is 1 whereas photocopy of R.C. (Ex. OP-1/15) shows last digit of engine number as 9. Photocopy of R.C. also reveals that date of registration of vehicle is 19-3-2020. This document further reveals that said vehicle is hypothecated with Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited. Due to fault/lapse on the part of opposite parties, in mentioning the wrong engine number on Invoice and other documents, complainant could not get the vehicle registered with RTA. The vehicle must have remained parked for three years i.e. 31-3-2017 to 19-3-2020 as in the absence of registration certificate, it could not be plied on road. Since the complainant availed loan to purchase the vehicle, he must have suffered financial loss as well as mental tension as he must be bound to pay the loan installment. Firstly it was the duty of opposite party No. 1 to check all the particulars of vehicle identification in detail before issuance of invoice etc., to complainant. Secondly, if any discrepancy took place, the opposite party No. 1 was duty bound to get corrected the Invoice immediately whereas three years time was taken by opposite party No. 1 to correct one figure in Invoice. The plea of the opposite party No. 1 that fault was on the part of opposite party No. 2 is not tenable as complainant purchased the vehicle from opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 was also bound to redress the grievance of the complainant in time rather both the opposite parties put the matter off for one reason or the other for the period of three years, which is itself proved from documents tendered in evidence by opposite party No. 1. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case at this stage, this Commission is of the considered view that complainant is certainly entitled to some amount of compensation on account of financial loss as well for mental tension, agony and litigation expenses. Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice, if complainant is allowed with Rs. 40,000/- as cost and compensation on all counts. Resultantly, this complaint is allowed agianst opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- as cost and compensation to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to recover the compensation amount with interest @9% p.a. from the date of sale of vehicle in question. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 18-01-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
