Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/538

Mrs.Shalini Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pioner chevrolet Omni Wheels (P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Parminder Singh Adv.

31 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 538 of 10.09.2015

   Date of Decision       :   31.05.2019 

 

Mrs.Shalini Kapoor, Sole Proprietor M/s. Shri Vrindhavan Steel Industries, D-111, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.M/s. Pioneer Chevrolet, Omni Wheels (P) Ltd., Plot No.73, New Kuldeep Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana-141007, through its Managing Director.

2.M/s Chevrolet Sales India P.Ltd., Regd. Office: Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol-389351, District Panchmahals, Gujarat, through its Chairman.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Parvinder Singh, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Harpreet Singh, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Sh.Kamal Kumar, Advocate Junior of Sh.Pardeep

Kapoor, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT 

1.                Complainant for smooth and efficient travel for self and family, being sole proprietor of complainant firm, purchased Chevrolet Beat L.T.(Diesel Car) for personal use. This car was hypothecated by the complainant with HDFC Bank Limited with the following specifications:-

“Light Beize 2014 Model Diesel car bearing temporary registration No.PB-10-(ER)-T-9003, Engine No.50153, Chassis No.22103, Sold vide invoice No.R00432 dated 15.04.2015, Challan No.3001 dated 13.04.2015.”

This vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited with office in Gulmor Hotel Building, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana for Rs.5,60,000/- under Dep Cap Insurance Policy. At the time of selling the car, Ops represented the complainant as if it is a brand new unused car, free from any defect. However, Ops did not deliver the duplicate car key and service book of the said car to the complainant for the reason best known to them. Purchase of the car took place vide invoice dated 15.04.2015. Next day, when the car was given for wash, then complainant and her family members were dumb struck to find as if it was second hand repainted accidental vehicle having scores of defects in it. Fresh coat of paint dots was given by Ops to this car. Fresh paint dots on beading, bumper, bonnet, doors and moulding were also there. Engine was given deafening noise. This car had already travelled 1500 Kms, but Ops had tripped the car meter to ‘0” to show as if it is unused car. Ops deliberately and intentionally mis-represented as if the car is brand new one. It is claimed that Ops have cheated the complainant with malafide intention for getting the wrongful gain, but causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Certificate dated 30.06.2015 issued by S.Gurmeet Singh, Partner of Gurmeet Motors, C-27, 28, Model Town Extension, Main Dugri Road, Ludhiana alleged to be annexed with the complaint for proving beyond shadow of doubt that car was painted except roof. Paid service repair order dated 2.7.2015 issued by Padam Car (P) Limited, G.T.Road, Dhandari Khurd, Ludhiana proves that car in question is of 2012 model. Complainant took the car to OP1 for disclosing about glaring defects and for lodging her protest, but Ops failed to give any satisfactory reply. Rather, OP1 for cooling down the complainant retained the said car for four days by giving assurance to the complainant as if her grievance will be redressed by taking up the matter with higher authorities. However, after four days, when the complainant along with family members visited the premises of OP1 for enquiring about fate of car, then behavior of staff in the premises of OP1 was disgusting with the complainant and her family members because they flatly refused to redress the genuine grievance of complainant by way of replacement of said old repainted car with new brand car of same specifications. At the time of sale of car, OP1 disclosed as if car is manufactured by OP2 and complainant and her family will have smooth rides. Ops never remained  concerned with the sentiments of complainant and her family members and as such, this complaint filed by claiming that Ops adopted unfair trade practice, but for claiming compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.3 lac and replacement of car. Legal notice served by complainant even did not   evoke any response till date. Replacement of car in question with new one of same model also sought.

2.                OP1 filed written reply where through claiming that car was purchased in the name of M/s Shree Vrindavan Steel Industries for commercial use and as such, complainant is not a consumer. Moreover, complaint alleged to be filed on false facts. If complainant has got the insurance policy, then OP1 has no concern with it. Admittedly, OP1 represented complainant that car is unused and free from any defect, but allegations regarding non-supply of duplicate car key and service book denied by terming them as false allegations. Allegations regarding repaint of the car or of its being accidental denied one by one each by claiming that it was neither repainted and nor the reading of the meter tripped to zero. Certificate dated 30.6.2015 of Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Partner of M/s Gurmeet Motors alleged to be a false document. Car in question was purchased on 13.04.2015, but in view of certificate of Gurmeet Singh being of date 30.6.2015, there is every possibility that complainant herself had got the car repainted after some accident. Model of car is 2012 and this fact was within the knowledge of complainant because discount of Rs.1,35,000/- for the old model car was given to the complainant. This fact was acknowledged by the complainant in writing and as such, she is estopped from raising this plea. Each and every other averment of complaint denied.

3.                In separate written reply filed by OP2, it is claimed that OP2 is not privity of contract between the complainant and OP1 and as such in view of relation of OP2 with OP1 on principal to principal basis, liability of OP2 is not there, particularly when the allegations levelled by the complainant against OP1 regarding cheating due to handing over the alleged old used accidental car. OP2 is the sister concern of General Motors India Pvt. Ltd, who manufactures the vehicle. OP2 purchases the vehicle manufactured by General Motor India Pvt. Ltd and thereafter, Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd supplies a stock of 20-25 cars to         OP1, but after receiving the sale price of same at the time of supply of cars. Thereafter, it remains the responsibility of OP1 to sell the car to the customers and to receive the sale consideration. Necessary services to be provided by OP1 and as such, complaint against OP2 is not maintainable. OP1 has agreement with Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd, as per which, both of them works on Principal to Principal basis as per mutually transacted agreement. Clauses 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 10.4.1, 15.1 and 19.1 of agreement reproduced in the written reply for claiming that OP1 was not granted authority to create any obligation on behalf of OP2 or General Motor India Pvt. Ltd. There is no fiduciary obligation given to OP1. Not even a single allegation levelled against OP2, who is manufacturer/wholesaler. No manufacturing defect in the car in question is alleged and nor any fault/imperfection/short coming or any deficiency in the quality and nature of the car alleged. OP2 is bound by the terms of warranty agreement. Perusal of agreement shows that if the vehicle is not performing upto its marks, only then the responsibility of the OP2 can be fixed. As per allegations of complainant, OP1 has sold old vehicle to complainant and in that eventuality also liability of OP2 does not remain because it has separate entity, than that of OP1. Vehicle  in question was manufactured in May 2012 and same was sold to OP1 on 29.5.2012 by issue of Form No.22. If OP1 has mislead the complainant regarding anything, then    sole responsibility remains of  OP1.  Op2 being manufacturer/wholesaler of vehicle cannot be dragged in the litigation until and unless it is stated that vehicle in question is not performing as per standard specifications or there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Those defects not alleged and as such by denying each and every other averment of complaint and after citing the law, prayer made for dismissal of complaint. OP1 is the authorized retailer and workshop of M/s Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd only.

4.                  Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and she even got produced affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Partner of Gurmeet Motors. Further, after tendering affidavit Ex.CC of Sh.Raj Kumar, Collection Managerof Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd along with documents Ex.C6 and Ex.CX, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, Counsel for Op1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1/A of Sh.Gautam Garg, Director of M/s Omni Wheels Private Limited along with documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                Counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Sameer Pant, working as Regional Manager Sales with OP2 along with documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/3 and then closed the evidence.

7.                          Synopsis of written arguments submitted by counsel for Op1, but it is not submitted by other counsels. Oral arguments of counsel for parties heard and records gone through minutely. 

8.                Earlier an application was filed for de-exhibiting the documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, the documents tendered in evidence by counsel for OP1 and Op2. Proceedings in this Forum are summary in nature and as such exhibition or non-exhibition of documents has not much relevancy because even as per latest instructions received from Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, case should be decided on the basis of self attested affidavit and self attested documents. So, prayer for de-exhibiting the abovesaid documents liable to be turned down and same is hereby turned down.

9.                Counsel for both Ops contends that complainant is not a consumer because the vehicle in question purchased in the name of Shri Vrindhavan Steel Industries, which is a commercial establishment. Besides, it is contended that purchased vehicle was used for commercial purposes and as such, complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These submissions advanced by counsel for both Ops has no force because after going through para no.3 of complaint and affidavit Ex.CA of complainant, it is made out that car was purchased in the name of firm, but for personal use by the complainant Mrs.Shalini Kapoor and her family members. It is further averred in affidavit Ex.CA that car never used for commercial purposes. These averments of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant has remained uncontroverted and as such those are to be taken as correct, more so when copy of income tax return Ex.C9 of complainant shows that she is proprietor of Shri Varindhavan Steel Industries and even registration certificate under Punjab Vat Act, 2005 Ex.C10 in the name of said firm has been obtained. Purchase of car in the name of firm as disclosed by the contents of Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 or Ex.R1 or Ex.R2 will not be enough to hold that the car was purchased for commercial purposes. Rather, proprietor of Shri Vrindhavan Steel Industries through her affidavit Ex.CA specifically claims that the car purchased for her own use and for use of her family and as such certainly though car purchased in the name of firm, but the same purchased for the use of proprietor and her family members. Being so, complainant certainly is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10.              Payment receipt Ex.C1 just shows as if amount of Rs.81,407/- paid to OP1 of Chevrolet Beat vehicle, which was hypothecated with HDFC Bank Limited. Date of purchase of this vehicle mentioned in Ex.C1 as well as in the challan No.3001(Ex.C2) as 13.04.2015 and same date is mentioned in temporary registration certificate Ex.C3 also. It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that in the insurance cover note of purchased vehicle, it is specifically mentioned that year of manufacture is 2014,but in fact the other evidence produced on record establishes as if the car is manufactured in 2012 and as such, case of complainant is proved that old used accidental car has been sold by Op1 to the complainant. Even if the date of purchase may be 13.4.2015, but despite that year of manufacture of car is neither mentioned in Ex.C1 and nor in Ex.C2 or nor in the temporary registration certificate Ex.C3. The same mentioned as 2014 in insurance cover note Ex.C4 only. Engine number and chassis number of insured vehicle mentioned through cover note Ex.C4 is the same as is mentioned in challan no.3001, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C2. However, in Ex.C2, year of manufacture is not at all mentioned, but it is mentioned that amount accepted as per contents of invoice. Though, complainant claims to have purchased the car in question through invoice No.R00432 dated 15.4.2015, but copy of that invoice has not been produced. Year of manufacture of car must have been mentioned in the invoice No.R00432, but the same has not been deliberately produced by the complainant and as such, virtually complainant is guilty of suppression of material facts from this Forum. Mere mention of year of manufacture of car as 2014 in insurance cover note Ex.C4 will not be enough to prove that actually the car was manufactured in 2014. None of Ops is privity of contract of insurance between the complainant and United India Insurance Company Limited and as such, Ops are not bound by the assertions contained in Ex.C4 regarding year of manufacture of insured car in 2014. No officials of insurance company examined to prove as to how and under what circumstances the year of manufacture of 2014 mentioned in Ex.C4. This car must have got the permanent registration certificate because the same bound to be obtained after lapse of period of temporary certificate of registration as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the temporary certificate of registration Ex.C3, it is mentioned that temporary registration certificate to remain valid for period from 13.4.2015 to 12.5.2015 and as such, the permanent registration certificate must have been obtained by the complainant after 12.5.2015. In that permanent registration certificate, the year of manufacture of registered car always bound to be disclosed, but that permanent registration certificate even has not been produced. So, virtually the complainant neither has produced the invoice No.R00432 dated 15.4.2015 and nor has produced the copy of permanent registration certificate, from where it could have been made out as to what was the year of manufacture of the car in question. For withholding this best proof, it has to be held that complainant seeking relief by suppressing the material facts in this respect.

11.              Certainly contents of job sheet Ex.C6 and of history of the car in question Ex.CX prepared by Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd establishes that year of manufacture of car in question is 2012 and that fact even deposed through affidavit Ex.CC of Raj Kumar, the Collection Manager of Padam Cars Pvt. Ltd. Even contents of affidavit Ex.RA2 of Sh.Sameer Pant, Regional Manager Sales of OP2 along with form No.22 Ex.R2/3 establishes that car in question was manufactured in May 2012 and same was sold by OP2 to OP1 on 29.5.2012. As this documentary evidence enough to establish that the car was manufactured in 2012 and sale of same by OP2 to OP1 took place on 29.5.2012 and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that old car of 2012 model sold by OP1 to the complainant by mentioning that car is manufactured in 2014 and is a defect free. The above referred documentary evidence along with contents of affidavit Ex.RA2 of OP2 certainly establishes that car in question was manufactured in May 2012, but the question remains as to whether OP1 or its representative sold this car by disclosing the complainant as if it is a new car of 2014 model or not. For that purpose, the best evidence available with complainant namely invoice No.R00432 dated 15.4.2015 and permanent registration certificate of car in question has been withheld by the complainant for the reasons best known to the complainant. As and when there is withholding of material documents throwing light on material question of a case, then inference is obvious that such withholding of information is for suppressing the material facts. A party who suppress the material facts is not entitled to claim  relief  from the Consumer Forum on equitable considerations.

12.               Even if the manufacture of car in question in May 2012 proved by the above discussed evidence, despite that it is  positive case of OP1 put forth through written reply and submitted affidavit Ex.R1/A of Sh.Gautam Garg, Director of M/s Omni Wheels Private Limited that car in question was purchased by the complainant on 13.4.2015 knowing fully well that model of car is 2012. This car was purchased on giving of discount of Rs.1,35,000/- on old model is a fact borne from the contents of affidavit Ex.R1/A as well as Ex.R1 i.e. copy of sale document of  car by OP2 to the complainant on 13.4.2015. Though, year of manufacture of car is not mentioned in Ex.R1, but it is mentioned as if Model of 2012. This Ex.R1 is signed by the customer as revealed by legible copy of this Ex.R1 subsequently produced before addressing the arguments. After going through Ex.R1, it is made out as if the car was sold to Shri Vrindhavan

 Steel Industries by giving discount of Rs.1,35,000/- because the car was of 2012 model. Not only signature of complainant, but even signatures of sales executive of Pioneer Chevrolet and of Assessory Manager are there on Ex.R1. It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that signature of complainant on Ex.R1 differ from her signatures on complaint or on her affidavit Ex.CA or on power of attorney   and as such, reliance on Ex.R1 cannot be placed. It is well settled that as and when there is dispute regarding forgery of documents, the same can be got resolved   from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction because for determining such question, elaborate evidence required. Examination and cross-examination of concerned witnesses required and as such, the same question cannot be decided in these summary proceedings. However, keeping in view the fact that complainant has suppressed the material facts in this respect also, but stand of OP1 is consistent throughout regarding the sale of car in question on discounted price, it has to be held   that case of OP1 is more believable as compared to case of complainant. As consistent stand of OP1 through affidavit Ex.R1/A as well as through written statement is that the car in question on discount of Rs.1,35,000/- was sold to complainant by disclosing as if model of car is of 2012 and as such, it was for the complainant to refute those allegations either through submitted affidavit or the documents produced or through rejoinder, but those facts have not been controverted at all by the complainant through any of the affidavits produced as Ex.CA to Ex.CC or any other documents and as such, case of OP1 has to be believed that car of 2012 model was purchased by the complainant after     knowing fully well that model of car is of 2012. Complainant has not disclosed the price paid by her at the time of purchase of car in question in the complaint or in her affidavit Ex.CA or in any other documents produced on record and as such complainant has suppressed this material fact also. If complainant could have mentioned in para no.4 of complaint that insurance coverage of car in question was obtained for amount of Rs.5,60,000/- under DEP Cap insurance policy, then certainly complainant must have disclosed the fact as to for what price the car was purchased by her. That fact deliberately not disclosed by the complainant, but the same has been disclosed by OP1 by producing customer copy of purchase letter Ex.R1, in which, it is mentioned that though the total price of the car including that of registration charges is Rs.6,16,407/-, but the car actually has been sold for Rs.4,78,815/- by giving discount on receivable amount of Rs.4,81,407/-. The   figure of Rs.4,81,407/- somewhat tally with the figure of Rs.81,407/- mentioned   in payment receipt Ex.C1 produced by complainant. As the car in question was hypothecated with HDFC Bank Limited and as such, some down payment was bound to be made by the complainant. In view of contents of Ex.C1, it is made out that down payment of Rs.81,407/- was made by the complainant out of the total price of Rs.4,81,407/- mentioned in Ex.R1. Even the documents pertaining to hypothecation of car with HDFC Bank Limited could have thrown  light as           to what was the year of manufacture of this car mentioned in those documents pertaining to hypothecation of the car with HDFC Bank Limited, Neither any official of HDFC Bank examined and nor any certificate obtained there from produced and nor any officials of HDFC bank called by the complainant for establishing that actually year of manufacture of the car was 2014 as mentioned in the insurance cover note Ex.C4. Being so, best evidence in that respect even withheld by the complainant and as such case of OP1 fully believable that in view of discount of Rs.1,35,000/- given on price of car in question, complainant purchased the car of 2012 model at discounted price.

13.        It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that this vehicle was got checked from Gurmeet Singh, Partner of Gurmeet Motors, who through certificate Ex.C5 claimed as if the whole of the car is painted except roof and as such, complainant able to establish as if the old model car of 2012 sold by OP1 to the complainant after getting the same repainted. Affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Gurmeet Singh, Partner of Gurmeet Motors in proof of these assertions also produced. In this affidavit Ex.CB, it is mentioned that car with above referred engine number and chassis number was checked by Gurmeet Singh for finding that the same was a repaired accidental car having score of defects in it. What were the scores of    those defects qua that contents of affidavit Ex.CB or certificate Ex.C5 absolutely are silent. How inference of car being accidental in the past drawn qua that contents of affidavit Ex.CB or certificate Ex.C5 are absolutely silent. How much time earlier to the inspection of this car by Gurmeet Singh, the repainting of same took place qua that contents of affidavit Ex.CB or of certificate Ex.C5 are silent. So, vague and general assertions are made in Ex.CB as well as in certificate Ex.C5 regarding the car being second hand or accidental one. If the car would have been accidental at the time of sale by OP1 to the complainant, then complainant would have ascertained from Gurmeet Singh as to how many dents or damage at which places of the car in question occurred in course of alleged accident. Spots of damage or of dent not at all mentioned in affidavit Ex.CB or in certificate Ex.C5 and as such reliance on this affidavit Ex.CB or certificate Ex.C5 cannot be placed, particularly when complainant herself has suppressed the material facts as discussed in detail above.

14.              Complainant did not apply to this Forum at the time of filing of complaint or subsequently for getting the vehicle in question tested from appropriate laboratory, albeit it is the requirement of Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On getting of this car tested from appropriate laboratory, the clear picture would have emerged as to whether the car was accidental or was repainted or not, but that exercise was not got carried out by the complainant at all and as such, in view of suppression of material facts detailed above, it has to be held that complainant has failed to prove as if the old accidental car was sold by OP1 with misrepresentation as if the car is of new model. Even if in Ex.C6, the job sheet dated 2.7.2015, mention made that front fender body of car gives noise, but despite that nature of noise is not at all mentioned in Ex.C6 or in any other documents. Though, the purchase of the car took place on 13.4.2015, but this job sheet Ex.C6 is of date 2.7.2015 and as such virtually complainant drove the car to distance of 4938 Kms at the time when job sheet Ex.C6 was prepared. If the car has travelled so much distance of 4938 Kms after its purchase in a span of 2 ½ months, then the noise may have occurred during the use of the car by the complainant in rough manner even and as such, mention of this fault of noise in Ex.C6 in no way helps the case of complainant. In certificate Ex.C5 of Gurmeet Singh, it is not at all mentioned that meter tripped from 1500 Kms to zero Km, but the same fact mentioned for the first time by Gurmeet Singh in his affidavit Ex.CB dated 16.3.2016. This means that Gurmeet Singh is a person, who is supporting the case of complainant as per choice of complainant. If really on checking of car by Gurmeet Singh on 30.6.2015, he would have found that meter of car got tripped from 1500 Kms to 0 Km for showing that the car is unused one, then reference of same tripping must have been made by Gurmeet Singh in his certificate Ex.C5. That has not been mentioned in Ex.C5 at all. Even scores of defects referred in affidavit Ex.CB not at all mentioned in Ex.C5. In Ex.C5, it is only mentioned as if the whole car is painted except roof portion and as such it is obvious that contents of affidavit Ex.CB are exaggerated than those of contents of certificate Ex.C5 prepared by Gurmeet Singh on 30.6.2015. A person who gives exaggerated versions with respect to the defects through affidavit viz-a-viz versions contained in the certificate prepared about nine months prior to the submission of affidavit, definitely can be said to under the thumb or influence of the person in whose favour     he is deposing. Being so, reliance on affidavit Ex.CB and certificate Ex.C5 cannot be placed. Though, price of the vehicle not disclosed by the complainant, but the same has been disclosed by OP1 by producing Ex.R1. Had the service book and duplicate key not given to the complainant, then he would have lodged protest at the time of receipt of delivery of the car, but no such protest shown to be lodged by the complainant at that time or subsequently by sending reminder/letter to Op1 except legal notice Ex.C7 sent through postal receipt Ex.C8 and as such story in this respect of complainant even cannot be believed, more so when the car was put under hypothecation immediately after purchase with HDFC Bank Limited. On registration certificate, note of hypothecation bound to be incorporated like the one incorporated on temporary registration certificate Ex.C3, but that registration certificate deliberately not produced by the complainant as discussed in detail above. Plying of vehicle without valid registration certificate is an offence punishable u/s 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as such it cannot be believed that complainant would have kept on plying the vehicle in question without registration certificate for more than three months after expiry of validity of the temporary registration certificate Ex.C3 on 12.5.2015. Being so, registration certificate bound to be in power and possession of complainant, but she choose not to produce the same deliberately.

15.              Submission advanced by Sh.Kamal Kumar, Advocate Junior of Sh.Pardeep Kapoor, Advocate for OP2 has force that there is no allegation levelled against OP2 regarding cheating or of supply of old accidental car to complainant and as such, complaint against OP2 is not maintainable. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP2 because the car was purchased by the complainant from OP1 by paying the price to OP1 through invoice. That invoice deliberately not produced by the complainant as discussed in detail above albeit number of invoice known to the complainant. Manufacturing defect in the car not alleged and as such, liability of OP2 as manufacturer is not there. If alleged accidental car after repaint sold by Op1 to the complainant, then virtually shower of allegations focused on OP1 and not on OP2. So, OP2 cannot be held liable at all for the alleged acts of fraud or cheating with complainant, more so when terms of clause 19.1 of Retailer sales and service agreement Ex.R2/1 itself establishes that agreement of sale of cars by Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd with Omni Wheels Pvt. Ltd is on principal to principal basis and relationship of partnership or of agency does not exist between CSIPL and dealer. So, for the acts of omission and commission of dealer i.e. OP1, OP2 i.e. CSIPL cannot be held liable. Looking from any angle, complaint against OP2 is not maintainable. Moreover, It is to be noted that contents of affidavit Ex.C       B of Gurmeet Singh discloses as if the car manufactured  in 2014 examined by him, but in fact the car in question is of 2012 model. How Sh. Gurmeet Singh got knowledge regarding the year of manufacture of car of 2014 qua that contents of affidavit Ex.CB and certificate Ex.C5 absolutely are silent and as such, same fact also enough to infer as if Gurmeet Singh submitted affidavit Ex.CB on the basis of information and instructions supplied by the complainant. On that count also reliance on Ex.CB cannot be placed. In view of suppression of material facts by the complainant, complainant is not entitled to any relief through this complaint and complaint merits dismissal, but without any order as to costs.

16.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

17.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Jyotsna Thatai)                                               (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:31.05.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.