State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anu Kant Chawla vs Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. & ... on 8 March, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 08.03.2017 Date of Decision: 20.03.2017 Complaint No. 242/2017 In the matter of: Anu Kant Chawla S/o Shri Kishan Chand Chawla R/o C-3A/115A, Janakpuri New Delhi-110058. ......Complainant Versus 1. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. Competent House F-14, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001 ....Opp. Party No.1 2. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. A-24 & 25, Madhu Vihar Rajouri (Dwarka) New Delhi-110075. ......Opp. Party No.2 3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Registered Office, Plot No. 1 Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj New Delhi-110070 ......Opp. Party No.3 CORAM Hon'ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial) Hon'ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member (Non-Judicial) 1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes SHRI O.P.GUPTA JUDGEMENT
The complaint is at the stage of admission. The same is based on the allegation that complainant is a young practicing chartered accountant. He was using an old Tata 'Indica' Car Regd. No. DL-4C-P-8160 Model 2003 and was on look out for purchasing a new car to replace the old one. He saw only the name of Maruti Suzuki/OP 3 and Competent Automobile Company Ltd. Op 1 and OP 2 into the stationery of OP 1 and OP 2 Tax/Vehicle & Charges invoice dated 27.10.13 which is Annexure C-1 does not contain address of its offices but only of its workshop. The same does not bear stamp of name and designation of authorized signatory who signed it. Delivery receipt dated 29.10.13 "Maruti True Value Pre-owned Cars" which is Annexure C-II purposely issued by evaluation of OP 1 and 2 on behalf of OP 3.
2. Price list of cars w.e.f. 3.10.13 (printed in a very small font between the lines and is not noticeable unless each and every black spot is carefully seen with magnifying glass). Annexure C-IV does not contain the name of manufacturer of cars. Form No. 29 under the Motor Vehicle Act was got executed from him on 29.10.13. Part 1 of form No. 30 Motor Vehicle Act was got executed from him on the same date. Part II thereof was executed by someone on behalf of OP II. At the time of taking delivery of old car it was mentioned by the OP that said car would not be further sold to any body but would be sent for cutting i.e. it would be dismantled with due notification to registered authority. OP took all necessary documents from the complainant.
3. Complainant could have disposed of his car in the open market for upto 60,000/- but preferred to sell the same to "Maruti True Value" at much lesser price so that the car could not fall in the hands of criminals or unscrupulous persons, He was entitled to 'No claim Bonus' to the extent of 45% under the insurance taken on said car. He applied to National Insurance Company for cancellation of insurance current at that time, refund of premium of unexpired period of insurance and for issuance of "No claim bonus certificate". Three years after the delivery of said car to OP II, a police party landed on the complainant on or around mid of April 2015 in process of inquest in respect of accident case in the city of Mandi Dabwali, Haryana as the car still stood in his name in the records of transport authority. FIR No. 116/16 U/s 279, 337/338/427 IPC was registered at Dabwali. Now he received summon from MACT Sirsa in a claim case filed by the victim claiming Rs. 30,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from date of accident dated 16.04.15. He has noticed manipulation done by OP I and OP 2 on affidavit which prima facie is only a delivery receipt which is Annexure C-8. Non-judicial stamp paper of said affidavit was purchased by or on behalf of and at the cost of OP 1 or OP 2. It was purchased on 01.10.13 at 5.56 p.m. from some private franchisee stamp vendor/ a month before the opposite party 2 got the delivery receipt dated 01.11.13 executed by opposite party No. 2 from the complainant. OP 1 and 2 had running contract with Shri Saravjeet Singh who is neither junk dealer nor a scrap dealer nor even dealer of reconditioned old spares of variety of cars but only a broker of variety of old used and new cars as well. The same is born from delivery receipt. No quotation or tender were invited for disposal of said car. Proposed affidavit is not dated and duly sworn, Delivery receipt is not witnessed.
4 There are smacks of some malpractices in as much as 34 old cars were sold to aforesaid dealer on a stamp paper purchased on 01.10.13 in respect of 13 old cars purchased upto end of Sept., 2013 and 21 cars purchased from 03.10.13 till sometime in Nov. 13. Ten more old cars which could not be said to have been purchased in Oct., 13 but only on or after 01.11.13 were also sold through some stamp paper. The car delivery of which was taken from him could not have been delivered to the buyer on 13th Oct., 13 and further sold to another person by complainant.
5. Car taken by OP 2 from complainant was further sold on 13.11.13 and delivered to Sumeer Kumar vide delivery receipt dated 13.11.13 in which delivery is shown to have been taken from complainant. Copy of the said delivery receipt is Annexure C-9. Lastly the car was with Rajan who is the offender and caused accident. The complainant has been vicariously made the offender as purported to be the owner of the car.
6. Complainant was charged for new car as per price list as Rs. 3,84,450.00 whereas price shown in the charges invoice is Rs. 3,05,299.54, Rs. 20,444/- and Rs. 13,333/- have been shown as discounts on the invoice. Discount of True Value of his old car assessed to be Rs. 38,000/- was given. Net amount should have been Rs. 2,67,463/-. He was charged Rs. 3,22,823/-, autocard charges were charged twice, once as autocard charges and again as "registration+ road tax........" etc. which is included in Rs.14,568/-for which break up has been given. MCD parking charges of Rs. 2000/- were taken, handling charges of Rs. 6,000/- were charged. MGA Combo booked at Rs. 7,940/- but he was charged Rs. 13,500/-.He had to run a lot to procure necessary material to show his innocence. OP had played fraud upon him. Hence this complaint for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony, Rs. 25,00,000/- as compensation for adverse effect on professional standard of complainant, Rs. 5,00,000/- for his absence from his profession and family, and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the unforeseen cost. In all he has claimed Rs. 47,50,000/-.
7. We have gone through the material on record and heard the argument. The complainant is a well educated person being a chartered accountant. It is not clear as to why he signed delivery receipt from No. 29 and 30 if the old car was not to be sold. Discrepancy in the invoice should have been noticed and pointed out to the Ops then and there. The cause of action in respect of sale transaction arose in Oct., 2013 and complaint filed on 14.02.2017 is barred by limitation of two years u/s 24 (A) of Consumer Protection Act.
8. Regarding criminal case of accident and MACT the complainant may defend the same and put pleas taken by him here as a defence in those cases. He cannot be allowed to preampt the outcome of those cases by filing this complaint.
9. It is surprising that complainant wants Rs. 47,50,000/- for a car purchased for Rs. 3,50.299.54. Consumer Protection Act is not meant for enriching a person.
10. Allegation of fraud are such which require a detailed trial including cross examination of witness. The same cannot be gone into in summary procedure under Consumer Protection Act.
11. Validity of stamp paper purchased by any one for use is six months. There is nothing wrong in using the stamp paper purchased on 01.10.13 for a document executed on 01.11.13.
12. Complaint is dismissed in limini.
Copy of the order be sent to all the parties free of cost.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) (O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Sbm