State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Metro Motors vs Smt. Suman Kumari on 22 December, 2008
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. ---- DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2008. In the matter of: FIRST APPEAL NO.44/2004. M/S Metro Motors, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Cantt. Through Y.P. Das, Managing Partner. Appellant. Versus 1. Smt. Suman Kumari W/O Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, resident of Vill. Kangain, P.O. Barram, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd., Mumbai, Through its Managing Director. 3. Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. (Deleted vide order dated 13.3.2006) . Respondents. Present: Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate, For the appellant. Mr. Dalip Kumar Sharma, Advocate, For respondent No.1. FIRST APPEAL NO.65/2004. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., now known as M/S Tata Motors, Mumbai, through its authorised signatory Mr. M.S. Pradeep. Appellant. Versus 1. Suman Kumari wife of Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, resident of Village Kangain, P.O. Barram, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. 2. Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (deleted vide order dated 13.3.2006). . Respondent. Present: Mr. S.R. Bansal, Advocate, For the appellant. Mr. Dalip Kumar Sharma, Advocate, For the respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting? yes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President(Oral)
1. Since both these appeals have arisen out of the order passed by the District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No.372/2002, dated 9.1.2004, as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Complaint was present on 20.8.2002 when besides the appellant in both these appeals, M/S Thakur Motors, Thakurdwara, Tehsil Palampur, was there as opposite party No.3. Thereafter vide order dated 18.1.2003, Regional Transport Officer (R.T.O.) Kangra at Dharamshala, and the Director (Transport), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, District Shimla, were added as opposite parties 4 and 5 when application of respondent for being added them as party was allowed. This resulted in filing of amended complaint. As such amended complaint was before the District Forum
3. In the aforesaid background, according to the respondent, in order to earn her livelihood, she purchased a Tata Tourin vehicle (Jeep) for a sum of Rs.4,45,748/- pursuant to the advertisement published in Punjab Kesari of 21.6.2001, 28.9.2001 and 9.11.2001. In this advertisement it was held out by the appellants as well as M/S Thakur Motors per respondent that in case vehicle in question is registered as Taxi, the purchaser will get rebate as per advertisement within 7 days of its registration. Copies of these advertisements are attached as Exhibits C.1, C.2 and C.3.
4. Admittedly vehicle was purchased by respondent from M/S Metro Motors-appellant who issued Ex. C.4 and C.5, Form Nos.21 & 22 respectively. Its sale invoice is Ex.C.6. Application for permitting her to purchase taxi Tata Sumo 5 + 1 is Ex.C.6 (Exhibit C.6 is put on two documents). Receipts of token tax are Ex. C.7 to C.9. Certificate of fitness is Ex.C.10. However vehicle was not registered by the concerned authority as is evident from the endorsement on the reverse of Annexure C.10.
5. Another salient feature of this case is that Ex. C.17 dated 20.10.2001 is the temporary registration certificate issued by M/S Metro Motors in its capacity as a Registering Authority as per provisions of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules framed thereunder. This temporary registration is valid for one month. Strangely enough, vide Ex.18, further temporary registration was allotted to the appellant on 3.6.2002 which is contrary to the mandate of Section 43 supra. How and under what authority of law it was issued, Mr. Bansal, learned Counsel for the appellant had no explanation. Respondent filed affidavit of her husband in support of her claim Ex.C.20 and has also placed on record certificate issued by Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Lower Lambagaon Office, to show that the Bank had financed the vehicle and had issued the requisite draft.
6. Despite best efforts, when vehicle was not registered for being plied as taxi, respondent made a grievance to M/S Metro Motors-appellant, however, no action was taken by it.
7. Stand of both the appellants in these appeals while contesting the claim of the respondent was that the District Forum at Dharamshala had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, nor it had the pecuniary jurisdiction in the face of the relief claimed. Similarly there is no consumer dispute because neither the respondent is a consumer nor the appellants service providers. Vehicle was being used as a taxi and had covered about 67270 kms. on 16.6.2003 in terms of Annexure A attached with M.A. No.362/2004 in this appeal. In this context it may be noted that M.A. No.362/2004 in Appeal No.44/2004 and 363/2004 in Appeal No.65/2004 was filed by the appellants with a prayer to permit Annexures A to C being taken on record. These were allowed on 9.8.2004 by the Commission. Further according to Mr. Bansal the respondent is guilty of concealment of facts as she had not disclosed that her husband was a contractor and vehicle was being used as taxi without registration. Moreover, there was no assurance held out by the appellant that they shall get the vehicle registered. What was held out according to Mr. Bansal was that within one week of the registration of the vehicle as a taxi, refund is admissible in terms of Ex. C.1 to C.3, as such it was the duty of the customer like respondent to get the same registered as Taxi.
8. So far official respondents are concerned, their stand in reply to paragraph 4 of the complaint was, that Tata Tourin (5+1) vehicle was not approved as required under Section 1 of Rule 130 of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999, for registration in Himachal Pradesh. In addition to this, what is the role of the dealer with respect to getting the model approved by opposite parties 4 & 5, who were added before the District Forum below is, in the following terms:-
..It is the responsibility of the dealer that before sale of the vehicle to any party, they have to get its model approved from competent authority i.e. Director, Transport, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Emphasis Supplied) This gives the official stand of the Government which is neither interested in the appellants nor in the respondent.
9. This stand of the State Government is duly supported with the affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar, H.A.S, which is at pages 117, 119 & 121 of the complaint file.
10. After having taken note of the above facts, it may be appropriate to further observe that the Regional Transport Officer (R.T.O.) Kangra, at Dharamshala was added as respondent in the appeal filed by M/S Metro Motors and as respondent No.3, and in the appeal filed by M/S Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd as respondent No.2.. In both the appeals on the basis of statement dated 13.3.2006 made on behalf of the appellants, Regional Transport Officer as respondent was deleted.
11. Whereas Secretary (Transport), Himachal Pradesh, who was admittedly the competent authority to have approved the model of the vehicle in question for being registered as a taxi in the State of Himachal Pradesh and was opposite party before the District Forum below as narrated hereinabove, was not added as a party in both the appeals. Why, could not be explained.
12. In these circumstances, firstly it is felt that they were necessary parties in this appeal, particularly when stand of the appellants in both these appeals as was forcefully urged by Mr. S.R. Bansal was, that it was not the duty of his clients to have got the vehicle registered. Question of registration would only arise when the vehicle is first approved by the Secretary (Transport), Himachal Pradesh for being registered as a taxi in the State. This is official stand as extracted hereinabove. Thus, in our opinion, both Regional Transport Officer as well as Director (Transport), Himachal Pradesh, who were added as opposite parties 4 & 5 before the District Forum below respectively were necessary parties in these appeals, especially keeping in view their stand while contesting the complaint before the District Forum below. As such these appeals are not maintainable, both these appeals cannot proceed and are thus liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
13. Another reason to uphold the order of the District Forum below is that in the face of the stand of the Director (Transport), Himachal Pradesh, it is clear that it was for M/S Metro-Motors, the dealer, from whom the vehicle admittedly was purchased by respondent, who had been appointed by M/S Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd., to have got the model approved before offering the said vehicle for sale in the market.
Once this conclusion is arrived at then it is clear that advertisements Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 were misleading.
14. Respondent is a consumer having purchased the vehicle on what was held out in the advertisement Ex. C.1 to C.3. Vehicle was to be plied by her in the State of Himachal Pradesh as taxi. And in response to Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 she had opted for the purchase of vehicle from Metro Motors finding the price to be minimum. In these circumstances, District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, had the jurisdiction to have entertained and tried the complaint in question and plea to the contrary is without any substance.
15. Similarly plea that the District Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction is without any substance. No doubt respondent had claimed interest but at what rate and for what period, the complaint is silent. And other reliefs claimed were below Rs.5 lacs. So far interest as claimed is concerned, it was within discretion of District Forum below to allow or not to allow the same at a rate and from a date as it might have deemed just and proper. Substantial relief claimed is below Rs.5,00,000/-, therefore, submission of Mr. Bansal, learned Counsel for the appellants that the claim is beyond Rs.5,00,000/- could not be entertained by the District Forum below prior to 15.3.2003 is being noted simply to be rejected.
16. So far submission of Mr. Bansal regarding concealment etc. is concerned, it is immaterial and in any case it cuts both ways. In the face of the documents attached with M.A. No.362/2004 and M.A. 363/2004 part of cause of action arose within the meaning of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to the respondent within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala. Because these are the job cards of Thakur Motors, Palampur, an authorised Service Station of Tata vehicles. This Concern was also an opposite party in the complaint before the District Forum below, but has not been added in these appeals before us.
Vehicle according to appellants was being plied illegally and was being serviced as per Annexures A to C, supra, within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, as was submitted by Mr. Bansal on the basis of the mileage cards attached with the applications being M.A. Nos. 362/2004 and 363/2004, (supra) filed with M.A. Nos. 362/2004 and 363/2004 and both these M.As were allowed in these appeals.. This also cuts at the root and also negatives the plea, of Mr. Bansal that the Fora at Kangra had no jurisdiction. In this behalf he laid emphasis on the vehicle being not registered. On one hand, he argues that vehicle had plied more than 60000 kms., and on the other hand his argument is that no cause of action arose in the Kangra district. Both these pleas are self contradictory and mutually destructive. Violation if any is of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, did not authorize the appellants i.e. Metro Motors to have floated Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 without having got the model mentioned in these advertisements approved for being plied as taxi in the State of Himachal Pradesh. This clearly establishes that Metro Motors indulged into unfair trade practice as an authorised dealer of the other appellant in Appeal No.65/2004. As such both these appeals must fail. Ordered accordingly.
17. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in both these appeals, as such these are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Office to place authenticated copy of this order on the file of Appeal No.65/2004.
Office is directed to send copy of this order to Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate, 248-Housing Board, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City (Haryana), free of cost by post as per Rules, and Mr. Sharma has undertaken to collect it from the Court Secretary in the like manner.
Shimla, December 22. 2008.
( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President ( Saroj Sharma ) /BS/ Member