State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narinder Kumar vs Kosmo Automobiles And Others on 16 March, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.843 of 2008
Date of institution: 11.08.2008
Date of decision : 16.03.2011
Narinder Kumar Narang (N.K.Narang) aged 51 years son of Sh.Nagin Chand
Narang, Development Officer, LIC of India, Zira District Ferozepur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Kosmo Automobiles, Pam Rose, World Trade Centre, G.T. Road, Jalandhar
through Principal Office at present Near Pragpur, G.T.Road, Opposite
D.P.School, Jalandhar.
2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,
Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Taluk, District Kachcheepuram
Tamilnadu 602105 through Principal Officer.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 22.05.2008
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.K.R.Dhawan, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate for
Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Sh.Ravinder Singh, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The appellant had purchased Accent Viva car (petrol version) of 2005 model from respondent No.1 on 6.4.2005 for an amount of Rs.6,43,551/-. This car was manufactured by respondent No.2. The car was financed by the ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs.4,40,000/-. Respondent No.1 had given temporary certificate of registration bearing No.PB08-AR-4344 under Rule 42 of the Punjab Motor Vehicle Rules. He had also given Form No.22, sale invoice and Form No.21. In all these documents, respondent No.1 had mentioned the year of manufacture of this car as 2005. Even in the insurance policy, the year of First Appeal No.843 of 2008 2 manufacture of the vehicle was mentioned as 2005. It was got registered by the appellant from the Registering Authority, Zira in which also, the year of manufacture of the car was mentioned as 2005.
2. It was further pleaded that it was only in the second week of February, 2007 that the appellant came to know that infact the year of manufacture of this car was 2004 and not 2005. This matter was brought to the notice of the respondents that they had cheated the appellant by misrepresenting the true facts. Legal notice dated 20.2.2007 was also served on the respondents but to no effect. Hence, the complaint for recovery of Rs.2 lacs as damages, for Rs.2 lacs as compensation for cheating and mental harassment and Rs.33,75,000/- as advertisement charges @ Rs.5000/- per day with effect from 6.4.2005. Costs and interest were also prayed.
3. Respondent No.1 filed the written reply. It was admitted by respondent No.1 that the year of manufacture of the car was 2004. It was specifically brought to the notice of the appellant and he was given the discount of Rs.70,869/- for this purpose. Therefore, it was denied if respondent No.1 had misrepresented the facts to the appellant or if respondent No.1 had cheated the appellant. Legal objections were also taken that the complaint was not maintainable and that it was barred by limitation. It was also specifically mentioned that the value of the car was Rs.6,43,551/-, Rs.500/- were for temporary registration number and Rs.23,432/- for insurance cover and the total amount payable by the appellant to the respondents was Rs.6,67,483/- but the appellant had made the payment of Rs.1,62,483/- vide receipt No.80 dated 7.4.2006, Rs.13,050/- vide receipt No.369 dated 8.4.2006 and the loan amount of Rs.4,21,081/-. The total amount paid by the appellant to the respondents against the amount of Rs.6,67,483/- was only Rs.5,96,614/- after availing the discount of Rs.70,869/-. The appellant was fully aware on the date of its purchase that the model of the car was 2004 but the complaint has been filed by him more than 2 years thereafter by feign ignorance. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed. First Appeal No.843 of 2008 3
4. Respondent No.2 also filed the written reply. It was pleaded that the appellant had availed a heavy cash discount of Rs.72,310/- by purchasing the model car of year 2004 in the year 2005 after fully knowing the same. It was specifically mentioned that respondent No.2 had only provided/issued Form No.22 which was a statutory document as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The perusal of this document would reveal that the chassis number of this car was mentioned in Form No.22 as MALCH51CR4M006119. The digit '4' indicates the said model to be of the year 2004. Therefore, the appellant was specifically aware that the car which he was purchasing was of 2004 model but since he had availed the hefty cash discount of Rs.72,310/-. Therefore, he had purchased the old model car. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed with heavy costs.
5. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.CA. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C36. On the other hand, respondent No.1 filed the affidavit of Umesh Mehra, Manager as Ex.O1/1 alongwith documents Ex.O1/2 to Ex.O1/13. Respondent No.2 also filed the affidavit of Abhijit Kumar, Senior Officer (Legal & Secretarial) as Ex.OP2/1. They also proved documents Annexures-1 to Annexure-2.
6. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 22.5.2008 with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
7. Hence, this appeal.
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the respondents had sold the car of 2004 model by representing the same to be of 2005 model and this fact had come to the notice of the appellant only in February, 2007 although the car was purchased on 6.4.2005. Hence, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 22.5.2008 be set aside.
9. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the appellant had purchased the car of 2004 model in 2005 by availing a heavy discount of Rs.70,869/- and the complaint filed by the First Appeal No.843 of 2008 4 appellant was false and fictitious and it was rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be also dismissed with heavy costs.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. It is admitted between the parties that the appellant had purchased Accent Viva car from respondent No.1 on 6.4.2005, the value of which was Rs.6,43,551/-. This car was admittedly manufactured by respondent No.2. It is also not denying the fact that the respondents had issued the delivery challan dated 6.4.2005 (Ex.C2). The appellant was also given temporary number as PB08-AR- TEMP-4344 on 6.4.2005 valid upto 5.5.2005 (Ex.C2) in which the year of manufacture is shown as 2005. Form No.22 was issued by respondent No.2 which is proved by the appellant as Ex.C3 in which the chassis number of this car is mentioned as MALCH51CR4M006119 and engine number is shown as G4ED4A79831. The chassis number and the engine number in document Ex.C3 are the same which have been shown by respondent No.2 in para 4 of the affidavit of Abhijit Kumar, Senior Officer (Legal and Secretarial) Ex,OP2/1. The sale invoice dated 31.3.2005 (Ex.C4) was issued by respondent No.1 in which the chassis number and the engine number are the same which were given by respondent No.2 in Form No.22 (Ex.C3). Therefore, respondent No.1 had not made any misrepresentation about the chassis number and the engine number of the car sold by respondent No.1 to the appellant. However, respondent No.1 had issued Form No.21 (sale certificate) dated 31.3.2005 (Ex.C5) in which the year of manufacture was shown as 2005. The insurance policy dated 6.4.2005 has been proved by the appellant as Ex.C6 in which again, the year of manufacture of the car is shown as 2005. Copy of the RC has been proved by the appellant as Ex.C7 in which again, the year of manufacture is shown as 2005. In answer to the legal notice dated 15.3.2007 (Ex.C19), respondent No.1 had specifically admitted that this car (2004 model) was received by respondent No.1 from respondent No.2 on First Appeal No.843 of 2008 5 3.2.2005. It was sold to the appellant by clearly making him aware that the car was of 2004 model.
12. After examining the entire evidence on the file, it is clearly proved that the car of 2004 model was sold by respondent No.1 to the appellant on 31.3.2005/6.4.2005 and the year of manufacture in this document was mentioned as 2005. This same year was also mentioned in the RC (Ex.C7).
13. Now, the question is whether the appellant was aware on the date of purchase that the car was manufactured in the year 2004 but it was purchased by him in the year 2005. The only fault of the respondents appears to be that in the document of sale or in the insurance policy, the year of manufacture was wrongly shown as 2005 whereas the year of manufacture of the car was 2004 but it is abundantly clear that the appellant was aware that the car was manufactured in the year 2004. The chassis number and the engine number which were admittedly known to the appellant and which are not denied by the appellant clearly prove that the car was manufactured in the year 2004. It means, therefore, that the appellant was clear about it and there was no misrepresentation about the year of manufacture of the car either by the dealer or by the manufacturer.
14. It appears that the appellant being the Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation put pressure on respondent No.1 to mention the year of manufacture as 2005 in the sale document. Not only that, the appellant also pressurized the Registering Authority to mention the year of manufacture in the registration certificate as 2005 instead of 2004. The layman may not be aware that the chassis number and the engine number of the car clearly reveal the year of manufacture and in the present case, the chassis number and the engine number of this car purchased by the appellant clearly revealed that the year of manufacture of this car was 2004 and even after knowing it, the Registering Authority mentioned the year of manufacture as 2005. It cannot be believed if the Registering Authority was unaware that the year of manufacture of a car is clearly made out from the chassis number and the engine number of the car and the appellant also being an First Appeal No.843 of 2008 6 educated person and working as a Development Officer in the LIC fully knew that the year of manufacture of the car was 2004 and not 2005.
15. The appellant pleaded in para 3 that the value of the car was Rs.6,43,551/- and it was financed by the ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs.4,40,000/- but the appellant very cleverly did not mention as to how he had made the remaining payment of Rs.2,03,551/- to respondent No.1 nor he furnished any proof if he had actually made the payment of Rs.2,03,551/- besides the payment of the price of the temporary registration number and of the insurance policy. If the version of the appellant had been correct, the appellant would not have pleaded it in the complaint but even would have proved the sources from which he had made the remaining payment.
16. On the other hand, the respondents have proved the discount voucher dated 31.3.2005 by crediting an amount of Rs.65,000/- (Ex.O1/9) in the account of the appellant and another discount voucher dated 31.3.2005 for Rs.7310/- in favour of the appellant as Ex.O1/10. It clearly means, therefore, that the appellant had availed the discount of Rs.65,000/- + Rs.7310/-. The appellant has not given any reasons if this discount was not because he had purchased the old model of 2004 on 6.4.2005. The appellant has also not given the reasons if this discount was not related to the old model of the car. The only fault of respondent No.1 was that they had mentioned the year 2005 as the year of manufacture in the sale document but it appears that it was got entered in the sale document by the appellant by his own pressure after availing the heavy discount of more than Rs.70,000/- and the same influence was used by the appellant upon the Registering Authority.
17. Not only the appellant had filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents on false facts but he had also got registered a criminal case against respondent No.1 at FIR No.64 dated 28.2.2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 in Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar in which Parveen Ahuja, Mrs.Poonam Ahuja, Mrs.Kokila Talwar and Mohit Aggarwal had to secure bail before arrest from the learned Sessions Judge, First Appeal No.843 of 2008 7 Jalandhar on 18.3.2008 (bail order Ex.O1/13). In this bail order also, the version of the accused in that case was that the present appellant has used his political pressure in getting the case registered against them. Parveen Ahuja and his wife Mrs.Poonam Ahuja were the Directors of Cosmo Automobiles (respondent No.1) while Mrs.Kokila Talwr was the Sales Manager and Mohit Aggarwal was the Accountant in Cosmo Automobiles respondent No.1 This shows that not only a false complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondents but even the appellant has got registered a false case against the directors and office bearers of respondent No.1. Therefore, the complaint has been rightly dismissed by the learned District Forum with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
18. In view of the discussions held above, this appeal is also dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- payable only to respondent No.1.
19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 11.8.2008. This amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent No.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
20. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to respondent No.1 immediately.
21. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 7.3.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
22. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER March 16, 2011.
Paritosh