DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, UNA, DISTRICT UNA, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
Consumer Complaint No.75/2008.
Date of institution : 16.06.2008.
Date of decision : 31.12.2009.
In the matter of :
Shri Surjit Singh son of Shri Rakha Ram, R/o Village Jalgran Tabba, Tehsil and District Una, H.P.
… … … Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Managing Director, Hoshiarpur Automobiles, Showroom Singriwala, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab.
2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.
… … … Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
……………………..
Before :-
1. Shri D. D. Sharma : President.
2. Shri Ajay Sharma : Member.
3. Mrs. Saroj Modgil : Member.
For the complainant : Shri N.K. Bali, Advocate.
For opposite party No.1: Shri Rajesh Chaudhary, Adv.
For opposite party No.2: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
…………………………………….
O R D E R
( Per Shri D.D. Sharma, President );
Complainant- Shri Surjit Singh son of Shri Rakha Ram, R/o Village Jalgran Tabba, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. in his complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties- (1) The Managing Director, Hoshiarpur Automobiles, Showroom Singriwala, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab and (2) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana has alleged that the opposite party No.1 is the proprietor and authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki and deals in the sale of Maruti branded vehicles including passenger cars/light vehicles etc. It is further alleged that in the first week of March, 2008 the complainant intended to purchase one Zen Estilo LX with 1 mm and thus, he approached the opposite party No.1 and demanded quotation of said model, which was supplied to the complainant at Una and the complainant raised a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from PNB Branch Behdala, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. That the total value of the car in question was Rs.3,25,024/-, out of which Rs.90,000/- was paid in cash to opposite party No.1 and remaining amount of Rs.2,35,023/- was given to opposite party No.1 vide bank draft No.TDH 091959, dated 07.03.2008 drawn at the PNB branch Behdala, from where the complainant raised the loan and thus, the entire sale consideration amounting to Rs.3,25,024/- stands paid to the opposite party No.1. That the complainant, who is holding a good executive post in BSNL department at Una was having Maruti 800 CC car bearing registration No.HP-20A-0371 and the idea to purchase the car in question in the year, 2008 was to have the latest model and that is why the complainant opted to purchase the new car in the month of March, 2008. That the opposite party No.1 sold the car in question to the complainant by supplying the same at Una pretending it to be a model of 2008 and the complainant applied for the registration of the car to the Motor Vehicle Registration Authority at Una, where it was noticed that the car in question is not a model of 2008, rather it is a model of 2007 and thus, the complainant apprised the opposite party No.1 telephonically in this regard and the authorized official of the opposite parties came at Una and corrected the invoice the car being the model of December, 2007 and inspite of the request of the complainant to opposite party No.1 to take the vehicle back and supply him a new car of model 2008, the said official of the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. That the complainant served a legal notice dated 28.03.2008 upon the opposite parties, who did not bother to reply or act despite receipt of the notice. That the opposite parties have not only played fraud and cheating, but also committed unfair trade practice with the complainant and have rendered themselves liable for action under the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and for deficiency in service under Section 2 (1) (G) & (F) of the Consumer Protection Act. That the complainant has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for the supply of one year down model car apart from mental harassment and agony. The complainant has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties either to replace the vehicle in question with new car or to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of supply of one year down model car besides Rs.5000/- as cost of complaint.
2. Notice of complaint was issued to the opposite parties to state their version of the case, who on appearance resisted and contested the complaint. The opposite party No.1 raised preliminary objections in the reply that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present complaint; that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint and that the complainant has no cause of action. On merit, the replying opposite party being the authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and sale of car to the complainant are admitted, but it is alleged that Shri Ajwinder Singh is the managing partner of the firm i.e. M/s Hoshiarpur Automobiles and that the replying opposite party sold the car to the complainant at their show room at Hoshiarpur i.e. M/s Hoshiarpur Automobiles Village Singriwala, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur. It is denied that the replying opposite party supplied the car to the complainant at Una. It is alleged that the car in question was sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant in March, 2008 and the year of manufacturing is 2007 and in fact the vehicle in question alongwith other vehicles were sent to the show room of the opposite party No.1 by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Gurgaon on 22.02.2008 and the consignment was received by the replying opposite party on the said date. It is denied that old model was sold to the complainant by the replying opposite party and it is alleged that the vehicle in question was supplied to the replying opposite party by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.2 in February, 2008 and was then sold by the replying opposite party to the complainant in March, 2008. It is also denied that any official of the replying opposite party went to Una or made any change or correction in the invoice and that the correction, if any was made at the time of issuing the invoice and not subsequently and that the complainant was fully aware of the year of manufacturing. That reply of notice was given to the complainant through RAD on 16.04.2008 and that no fraud and cheating have been committed by the replying opposite party and that the complainant took the delivery of the car after being fully satisfied. The replying opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost. The reply is duly supported by affidavit of Shri Ajwinder Singh Partner of replying opposite party.
3. The opposite party No.2 also raised preliminary objections in the reply that the complainant is not a consumer of the replying opposite party as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant neither bought the vehicle in question under any contract for sale with the replying opposite party nor hired any service for consideration and thus, the complaint against the replying opposite party is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed in-limine; that the complaint is without any cause of action and thus, the complainant has no case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as denied under Section 2(1) (o) and (r) of the Act; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for the reason that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute involved in the complaint as prescribed under Section 11 (2) of the Act; that according to established principal of ‘Caveat Emptor’ of Consumer Protection law, the purchaser being a highly educated person holding good post in Govt. should have done or got done all the documentation work clearly and carefully and checked the documents at the time of delivery of the vehicle and thus, the opposite parties cannot be held liable in any way for the negligence of the complainant; that the complainant is not entitled for compensation under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act as he has failed to place any material on record in order to substantiate his claim for compensation against the replying opposite party; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and that the complainant did not had any transaction of sale/purchase with the replying opposite party; that the complaint is baseless and fragrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the replying opposite party and that the complainant has no locus standie to initiate the present proceedings and is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act. On merit, manufacture of Maruti Suzuki brand vehicles by the replying opposite party is admitted and it is alleged that the replying opposite party is a reputed car manufacturer engaged in manufacturing of Maruti Suzuki range of vehicles (cars) and that the replying opposite party sells vehicles so manufactured by it to its authorized dealers including opposite party No.1 under the dealership agreement against C Form as is required under the Central Sales Tax Act and that the authorized dealers of the replying opposite party sells the vehicles to their customers independently under their own contract, invoice and sale certificate and that the replying opposite party neither invoices nor earmarks any individual vehicle in favour of any individual customer at the time of dispatch from its factory to its dealer and thus, the replying opposite party has no involvement in the transaction of the sale of vehicle to the individual customer and that the relationship between the replying opposite party and the dealer is that of principal to principal basis only. That the transaction of the vehicle has taken place between the complainant and opposite party No.1 on their own terms and conditions for which the replying opposite party was not privy to the said transaction. However, the complainant has failed to place on record any document in support of his case for purchasing a car of 2008 model and that the replying opposite party does not sell or earmark the vehicles to individual customer nor has received any payment from the complainant. Lastly, it is alleged that the replying opposite party has not rendered deficient services or played any fraud and cheating with the complainant and thus, the complainant is not entitled to receive any claim from the replying opposite party. The replying opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy cost, the same being frivolous and vexatious. The reply is duly supported by affidavit of Shri Surender Kumar Senior Manager (Law) of replying opposite.
4. In the rejoinders, the contents of replies filed on behalf of opposite parties have been controverted and that of complaint have been re-asserted.
5. In support and to prove their respective contentions, the complainant relied on and tendered in evidence documents annexure C-1 to C-6 besides his affidavit annexure C-7, the opposite party No.1 relied and tendered documents annexure OP-1/A to OP-1/C and the opposite party No.2 relied on and tendered affidavit of Shri Surender Kumar, its Senior Manager (Law) annexure O-2/A1.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record of the case, carefully.
7. On close scrutiny of complaint, replies filed on behalf of opposite parties, rejoinders and the documents relied on and tendered by the parties and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that no case has been made out, so as to issue any direction to the opposite parties. As per complainant, the opposite party No.1 supplied model of 2007 instead of model of 2008. Admittedly, there is nothing to substantiate the contention of the complainant that he intended to purchase model of 2008 in the 1st week of March, 2008. As per complainant, authorized official of the opposite parties came to Una at his request and corrected the invoice of the car being the model of December, 2007. There is absolutely nothing to support such a stand. Even the name of such person has not been mentioned in the complaint. Moreover, the correction has been alleged in December, 2007, whereas notice was issued on 28.03.2008 and silence of complainant from December, 2007 to 28.03.2008 has not been explained or justified. The sale invoice which is alleged to have been corrected by the official of opposite party No.1 has not been placed on record by the complainant in order to substantiate his contention regarding correction of model of vehicle made in the invoice.
8. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the present complaint, which is accordingly dismissed. However, there are no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order, be supplied to the parties, free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
31st Day of December, 2009.
(D.D. Sharma)
President.
(Ajay Sharma)
Member.
(Saroj Modgil)
Member.
*dinesh*
****************************
Tags: Maruti Suzuki India