State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. Anita Kumari. & Ors. on 2 August, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 216/2016
Date of Presentation: 30.06.2016
Order Reserved On : 23.05.2017
Date of Order : 02.08.2017
......
Autopace Networks Pvt.Ltd. (Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer)
Plot No.112-113 Phase I Industrial Area Chandigarh
through its Managing Director.
...... Appellant/Opposite party No.1
Versus
1. Anita Kumari w/o Shri Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj
R/o Village Gallera Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P.
......Respondent /Complainant
2. Regional Manager Maruti Udyog Limited SCO No.08
Madhya Marg Chandigarh.
3. General Manager Maruti Udyog Ltd. Gurgaon Haryana.
4. M/s. Competent Automobiles Company Limited
through its Managing Director near ITI Chowk
Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. - 174001.
......Respondents /Opposite parties No. 2 to 4.
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Vijay K. Verma Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta Advocate.
For Respondents No.2&3: Ex-parte.
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. H.S. Rangra Advocate
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016)
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 21.08.2015 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.159/2012 title Smt. Anita Kumari Versus Managing Director M/s. Auto Pace Network Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant Smt. Anita Kumari filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite parties pleaded therein that complainant is unemployed married lady. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 is authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki and conducting business of selling second hand cars in the name and style of Maruti True Value. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 is regional head of Maruti Company and opposite party No.3 is head of entire company. It is pleaded that opposite party No.4 is local branch of Maruti Company engaged in selling cars and earning profits. It is further pleaded that complainant purchased car No. UP-12J-8151 Maruti 800 in consideration amount of Rs.70000/- (Seventy thousand). It is further pleaded that documents of car were not supplied to complainant. It is further pleaded that car could not be 2 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) plied upon public road due to non-supply of relevant documents i.e. RC and NOC. It is further pleaded that complainant visited office of opposite parties several times but opposite parties did not provide proper service to complainant. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to provide RC and NOC of vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 Maruti 800. In addition complainant also sought relief for compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) for causing mental agony, pain and harassment alongwith interest @18% per annum till realization. In addition complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs.5100/- (Five thousand one hundred) as litigation expenses from opposite parties. In alternative complainant sought relief that opposite parties be directed to take back vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 Maruti 800 and refund Rs.70000/- (Seventy thousand) to complainant alongwith interest @18% per annum till the realization of entire amount.
3. Per contra version not filed on behalf of appellant Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 pleaded therein that complainant is not consumer. It is pleaded that complainant did not pay any amount to opposite parties No. 2 & 3. It is further pleaded that there is no privity of 3 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) contract between complainant and opposite parties No.2 &
3. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 did not commit deficiency in service and did not involve in any unfair trade practice. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.2 & 3 are not responsible for the act and conduct of opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd.
It is further pleaded that entire consideration amount was received by opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. and it is further pleaded that sale transactions took place between complainant and opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. It is further pleaded that relationship between opposite party No.1 and answering opposite parties is on the concept of principal to principal. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Per contra separate version filed on behalf of opposite party No.4 pleaded therein that present complaint against opposite party No.4 is not maintainable. It is pleaded that opposite party No.4 is dealer of Maruti Company at Bilaspur. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.4 is not liable for any deals conducted by complainant and opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
5. Learned District Forum allowed complaint against opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) dismissed complaint against opposite parties No.2 to 4. Learned District Forum ordered that opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. would supply RC and No Objection Certificate and would transfer vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 Maruti 800 within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order failing which opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. would refund sum of Rs.70000/-(Seventy thousand) to complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 21.11.2012 till the amount is not realized. Learned District Forum further ordered that in the event of refund of amount by opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. to complainant opposite party No.1 would be at liberty to take possession of car in question from complainant. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. would pay punitive compensation to the tune of Rs.30000/-(Thirty thousand) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the said would bear interest @9% per annum. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No.1 would pay costs to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to complainant.
6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party No.1 Autopace 5 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) Network Pvt. Ltd. filed present appeal before State Commission.
7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondents No.1 & 4. Co-respondents No. 2 & 3 proceeded ex-parte before State Commission. We have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arises for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Complainant Smt. Anita Kumari filed affidavit annexure C-17 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent purchased car No.UP-12J-8151 Maruti 800 from opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. in consideration amount of Rs.70000/-(Seventy thousand).
There is recital in the affidavit that RC and NOC not supplied to complainant by opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. There is further recital in the affidavit that in the absence of RC and NOC complainant could not 6 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) ply car upon public road. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent also spent amount for renewal of insurance policy twice. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent had to hire another taxi to take her mother in law to PGI Chandigarh and incurred huge expenditure.
10. Complainant also filed affidavit of Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj husband of complainant annexure C-18 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that mother of deponent became blind and she was brought to PGI Chandigarh regularly for medical check-ups. There is further recital in the affidavit that wife of deponent purchased vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 from opposite party No.1 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. in consideration amount of Rs.70000/-(Seventy thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that car could not be plied upon public road in the absence of RC and NOC. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent had to hire another taxi for medical check-ups of his mother at PGI Chandigarh.
11. Complainant also filed affidavit of Surinder Pal Bansal annexure C-19 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent is owner-cum-driver of vehicle No. HP-01B-0168 and runs taxi under Baba Nahar Singh 7 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) Union Bilaspur H.P. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant hired taxi of deponent to get her mother in law checked up and for treatment from Chandpur to PGI Chandigarh on 05.12.2011, 12.12.2011, 19.12.2011, 26.12.2011, 09.01.2012, 23.01.2012, 06.02.2012, 05.03.2012, 07.05.2012, 27.08.2012 and 08.10.2012 and deponent received a total sum of Rs.41355/- (Forty one thousand three hundred fifty five) as taxi fare from complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant could not ply her car in the absence of NOC and RC of car.
12. Opposite parties No. 1 to 4 did not file any affidavits as per modes mentioned under Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for adjudication of consumer disputes. Opposite party No.4 filed only documentary evidence.
13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum Bilaspur camp at Ghumarwin has no territorial jurisdiction to decide present complaint and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that address of opposite party No.4 has been shown as Branch Manager near ITI Chow Tehsil Sadar District Bilaspur H.P. Territorial 8 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) jurisdiction of District Forum has been defined under section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. There is specific provision under section 11(2)(b) that complaint could be filed at a place where any of the opposite parties reside. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum Bilaspur camp at Ghumarwin was legally competent to entertain complaint in view of section 11(2)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that consideration amount to the tune of Rs.70000/-(Seventy thousand) was not received by appellant and on this ground appeal be allowed is also decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused receipt annexure C-2 placed on record. As per annexure C-2 amount of Rs.70000/-(Seventy thousand) for sale of vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 was received by Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Receipt annexure C-2 in consideration amount of Rs.70000/-(Seventy thousand) issued by Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. in individual capacity and remained unrebutted on record. Even Autopace Network Private Ltd. did not file version and also did not file any affidavit in evidence in support of controversial facts. Hence adverse inference is drawn against Autopace Network Pvt. 9 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) Ltd. on the principle of natural justice and in the ends of justice. See AIR 1999 SC 1441 Vidyadhar Versus Mankik Rao. See AIR 1999 SC 1341 Ishwar Bhai C. Patel Versus Hari Har Bahera.
15. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that order passed by learned District Forum is not based upon proved evidence and is contrary to law and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused order passed by learned District Forum. It is proved on record that complainant purchased vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 in consideration amount of Rs.70000/-(Seventy thousand) because mother in law of complainant used to remain sick and used to visit PGI Chandigarh for medical check-ups. It is proved on record that complainant could not use vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 in the absence of RC and NOC. It is proved on record that complainant Anita Kumari purchased secondhand vehicle from appellant Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. in consideration amount of Rs.70000/- (Seventy thousand) on dated 01.12.2011. State Commission is of the opinion that Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. was under legal obligation to issue NOC and was also under legal obligation to issue RC to complainant because opposite party 10 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. has received sum of Rs.70000/- (Seventy thousand) from complainant as sale consideration amount of secondhand vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 in individual capacity.
16. State Commission has carefully perused affidavit filed by complainant Anita Kumari. Affidavit filed by Anita Kumari is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed by Anita Kumari. There is no evidence that Anita Kumari has hostile animus against opposite party No.1 prior to purchase of vehicle. Similarly State Commission has perused affidavit filed by Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj husband of complainant. Affidavit filed by Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. There is no reason to disbelieve affidavit filed by Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj. There is also no evidence on record in order to prove that Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj had animus hostile against opposite party No.1 at any point of time prior to sale of vehicle by opposite party No.1. State Commission has also perused affidavit filed by Surender Pal Bansal. Affidavit filed by Surender Pal Bansal is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of State Commission. There 11 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) is no reason to disbelieve affidavit filed by Surender Pal Bansal. There is also no evidence on record in order to prove that Surender Pal Bansal had animus hostile against opposite party No.1 at any point of time prior to sale of vehicle by opposite party No.1. Affidavits filed by Anita Kumari, Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj and Surender Pal Bansal remained unrebutted on record. Opposite parties did not file any counter affidavit in support of their case as per modes mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to consumer disputes. It is well settled law that Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a beneficial legislation and was enacted for the protection of interest of consumers.
17. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that complainant is not consumer and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that consumer is defined under section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 consumer means a person who buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised. In the present case it is proved on record that complainant purchased car No. UP-12J-8151 from opposite party No.1 12 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) in consideration amount of Rs.70000/- (Seventy thousand) and it is also proved on record that opposite party No.1 also issued receipt in consideration amount of Rs.70000/- (Seventy thousand) for sale of vehicle No. UP-12J-8151 directly on behalf of Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. in individual capacity. In view of the fact that receipt annexure C-2 was issued directly on behalf of Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. in individual capacity State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No.1 is under legal obligation to issue RC and NOC to the complainant. It is well settled law that party cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. See AIR 1993 SC 352 title R.N. Gosain Versus Yashpal Dhir. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed and order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Receipt annexure C-2 issued by Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. in individual capacity will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to 13 Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd. Versus Smt. Anita Kumari & Ors. (F.A. No.216/2016) record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 02.08.2017.
*GUPTA* 14