Haryana

Panchkula

CC/106/2019

HARISH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TATA MOTOR LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	106 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	14.02.2019
Date of Decision	:	23.02.2022

 

 

Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Satpal, aged 45 years, resident of H.No.175, Sunder Nagar, Near Gagan Chowk, Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s Tata Motor Ltd. Pimpri Pune, 411018

2.     Panchkula Automobiles, 79, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula,        Haryana.

3.     SDM-cum-RTA, Rajpura.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh.Satpal Ranga, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 30.04.2019.

                        Sh. Sunidh Kashyap, Advocate for the OP No.2.

                        Sh. Gurjant Singh, Clerk, authorized representative of OP No.3.    

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had booked a car namely Tata Nexon XM(D) Glasgow Grey on 06.01.2018 at the price of Rs.7.70 lacs with OP No.2 alongwith booking amount of Rs.11000/- vide Agency receipt No.1592. At the time of booking, the complainant told to the company official that the car must be of the year of 2018 Model for which the employees of the company had promised for providing the car of 2018 model. The complainant had taken the delivery of the car on 18.01.2018 from the company vide Sale Certificate dated 18.01.2018. However, as per Sale Certificate the vehicle was shown of 2018 model. The Registration certificate of the car received from the competent authority in the month of April 2018 and from the perusal of the same it was found that the car was of 2017 Model instead of 2018 Model. After which for the first and second years an amount of Rs.15,381/- and Rs.12,630/- respectively was paid to the Insurance Company as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act for Insurance Policy of the vehicle vide Insurance policy dt. 18.01.2018 & 17.01.2019 respectively.  After feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint to the Agency vide complaint no. 03.05.2018 but no action taken report was sent to the complainant. However, a letter dt. 16.05.2018 was sent to SDM, Rajpura vide which it was informed by the company that the car in question sold to the complainant on 18.01.2018 against the chasis no.MAT627121JLA00569 and Engine no.1.5 CRAILOIPSYW31709 is the manufacturing of Jan. 2018. The company  further informed that as mentioned in their Tata Portal and the documents  which they handed over to the customer is clearly showing that the vehicle is 2018 manufactured and also informed to the SDM-cum RTA, Rajpura that the correction needs to be made in their system and renew his Registration Certificate and update it with manufacturing of Jan.2018. The complainant has also approached to the customer care of the company through mail on 14.05.2018, 24.05.2018 and 30.05.2018 and also contacted the officials of the company but no action yet has been taken. The complainant has also given a complaint to the Panchkula Police but no action has been taken by the Police. Due to the above said act and conduct on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.  

2.             Notice was issued to the OP No.1 through registered post No.CH025495466IN on 23.01.2019 to OP No.1, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OP No.1; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Op No.1, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 30.04.2019.

                Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through learned counsel  and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false. On merits, it is stated that there was no Nexon in stock of OP No.2 and is not possible for the OP No.2 to supply the Nexon Car which was manufactured in the year 2017 to the complainant in the year 2018. The vehicle was built by the Tata Motors Ltd. and supplied to the dealer OP No.2 on 12.01.2018. The OP No.2 issued the sale certificate of the said car with month and year of manufacture January, 2018. However, the Rajpura registering authorities have issued the Registration Certificate from the portal of the manufacturer M/s Tata Motors Ltd.  in which  by mistakes the year of manufacture given as 2017. However, later on, the OP No.2 took the matter with the Tata Motors Ltd. Sector-34, Chandigarh who further investigated the said matter and made the  necessary correction in their portal and requested  to the complainant and to Regional Transport Office, SDM, Rajpura, Punjab that the year of manufacturing of the said car is Jan.2018 and same can be verified from the TML Sale certificate form 21 and type approved certificate issued by the Automotive Research of India(ARAI), which is a research association of the Automotive Industry with Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises Government of India and further made  request  to the complainant  and to the registering authority to correct the year of manufacturing  from 12/2017 to Jan.2018. It is submitted that the year of the manufacturing is Jan.2018 and requests had been made to the registering authority for correction of the same in the registration certificate of the said vehicle. However, it is submitted that there is no deficiency in services and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the agency i.e. OP No.2 as they issued the sale certificate dated 18.01.2018 in which correct description of the vehicle with correct month and year of manufacturing Jan. 2018 has been mentioned and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.     

        Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through their authorized representative and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had purchased a car from OPs No.1 & 2 on 18.01.2018. In all sale documents the model of the car was indicated as 2018. However, at the time of Registration of said car by the office of answering OP, as per the information available in the software of Vahan 4, the model of the car was mentioned as December 2017, as a result of which the vehicle was registered as of December 2017 model. Further, the OPs No.1 & 2 have admitted that it was on account of an error  on their part, that the vehicle was mentioned as the model December 2017 and said error has now being rectified by them. Further of the said information provided by OPs No.1 & 2, the office of answering OPs has taken up the matter with the National Informatics Center(NIC), A State Government nodal agency for the purpose of maintaining the software of Vahan 4. The said agency vide its communication dated 23.01.2019, after verification of the record has given its findings to the effect that the manufacturing year of vehicle is January 2018 and registered the office of answering OP to issue fresh/updated  Registration Certificate.  As per the direction of the NIC an updated Registration Certificate has now been generated from the software of Vahan 4 which indicates the model of the car as 2018. Fresh/updated Registration Certificate can only be issued to the concerned when he apply for the same with due fee i.e. Rs.720/-. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.      

3.             To prove his case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered an affidavit as Annexure R2/A alongwith documents as Annexure R2/1 to R2/4 and close the evidence.  The evidence of the OP No.3 is closed by court order dated 28.02.2020.

4.             We have heard the ld. counsels for the complainant as well as OP No.2 & Authorised representative of OP No.3 and gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             In the present complaint, the replacement of the vehicle i.e. Tata Nexon XM(D) Glasgow Grey as purchased by the complainant from OP No.2 on 18.01.2018 vide sale certificate(Annexure C-2) has been prayed on the ground that the said vehicle was sold to him stating it to be model of 2018 year whereas it was found, as per registration certificate of the vehicle(Annexure C-3), belonging to model of 2017 year. Apart from it, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment etc. has also been prayed.

6.             In the present complaint the only controversy is about the model wrong month and year of manufacturing of the said vehicle, namely, Tata Nexon XM(D) Glasgow Grey. In this regard, the letter dated 23.11.2018 (Annexure R2/3) written by OP No.1 i.e. Tata Motors Ltd. to the OP No.3 i.e. RTA-cum-SDM, Rajpura(PB) is very relevant, wherein it is mentioned that due to system error/clerical mistake on their part, the vehicle was got registered with wrong month and year as year of manufacturing December 2017. It is further stated in the said letter that vehicle was actually manufactured in the month of Jan. 2018, which could be duly verified from sale certificate (Annexure C-2) and type approval certificate issued by Automotive Research of India. As per Tax invoice(Annexure R2/1), the manufacturing year of the vehicle in question is 02.01.2018. The OP No.2 asked the complainant vide its letter dated 14.02.2019(Annexure R-2/2) to contact the OP No.3 for the issuance of fresh registration certificate of the vehicle. The OP No.3, after the receipt of the said letter 23.11.2018(Annexure R-2/3), took up the matter with National Informatic Centre(hereinafter referred to as NIC), which is a State Government Nodal Agency, created for the purpose of maintaining the Vahan for software, which in turn vide its e-mail dated 23.01.2019 informed that the manufacturing year of the vehicle is 2018 and accordingly asked the OP No.3 to issue fresh registration certificate to the owner of the vehicle. As per averments made in Para no.5 of the reply of OP No.3, a fresh registration certificate showing the year of manufacturing as 2018 can be issued when the complainant apply for the same with due fee as per the said directions issued by NIC.

7.             From above discussion, it is crystal clear that the manufacturing year of the vehicle is 02.01.2018 as per sale certificate (Annexure C-2) and Tax invoice (Annexure R2/1) and thus, we find no force and substance in the prayer of the complainant for replacement of the vehicle in question with a new one having the model of 2018; hence the prayer of the complainant is rejected in so far as it relates to replacement of the vehicle is concerned. However, the complainant is entitled to be duly compensated on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him due to sole lapse on the part of OP No.1 as OP No.1 itself vide its letter 23.11.2018 (Annexure R2/3) has admitted its fault, which led to the preparation of registration certificate of the vehicle with a wrong year of manufacturing. Moreover, the OP No.1 has preferred to be proceeded ex-parte as it did not appeared on 30.04.2019 for defending the present complaint.  No deficiency is found on the part of OP No.2 as we find nothing wrong on its part while issuing the sale certificate (Annexure C-2). Further, no deficiency is found on the part of OP No.3 and the complaint is dismissed qua OPs No.2 & 3.

8.             Regarding relief, we find that the complainant has been compelled to file the present complaint only on account of the lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 and thus, he is entitled to relief.     In our opinion, a compensation of Rs.20000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and further a compensation of Rs.5,500/- on account of litigation charges would be adequate and sufficient in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and it is ordered accordingly. The complainant is advised to apply with OP No.3 by paying the required fee for the preparation of fresh registration certificate.  The OP No.3 is directed to provide the hassle free services to the complainant as and when he approaches his office in connection with the preparation of fresh Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question.

9.             The OP No.1 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the  date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP No.1.  A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:23.02.2022

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

          Member                         Member                        President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini                           

     Member