State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Kishori Lal Sudesh Kumar Metals Pvt. ... vs M/S M.G.F. (India) Ltd., on 24 February, 2009
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 24-02-2009 Complaint NO.C-08/2000 M/s Kishori Lal Sudesh Kumar Metals Pvt. Ltd, -Complainant 110, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi Through Through its Director Mr. Umesh Joshi, Shri Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus 1. M/s M.G.F. ( India) Ltd., -Opposite Party No.1 Registered Office Through 4/17 B, Asaf Ali Road, Mr. Rahul Mehra, New Delhi. Advocate. 2. M/s Jainsons Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., -Opposite Party No.2 Plot no. 1, Sector-27 A 15/7, Mathura Road, Faridabad (Haryana) 3. M/s DCM Daewoo Motors Ltd., -Opposite Party No.3 A-1, Subajpur Industrial Area, NOIDA Dadri Road, Surajpur, Distt. Gzazibad (U.P.) CORAM: Mr. Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) The complainant was granted finance by OP No. 1 for purchase of CEILO car. Total cost of the car was Rs. 5,05,060/- and the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 76,060/- as margin money to the OP No. 2 which included charges for registration and insurance of the vehicle.
On receipt of the remaining sale consideration from the OP No. 1, the OP No.2 delivered the car to the complainant on 38.3.1997 with registration number written on the number plate as HR-51-A-9782. The only two documents handed over to the complainant were an Invoice no. 040110701 and a warranty and Service Book no. 23994. The invoice was surprisingly dated 31.12.1996. The warranty book contained particulars which were over-written and even the number was entered by hand on the first warranty card and the page on that car appears to be a photocopy format.
2. There was no defect either mechanically or otherwise in the car and the chassis number, engine number, key number, etc. tallied with those written on the Warranty, Service Book and the Invoice. The OP No. 2 intimated the complainant that the documents issued by the Transport Authority will be furnished to him through the OP No. 1, the Finance Company. The OP No. 1 contended that the registration book shall be kept in its custody till the payment of the last instalment of hire charges is made by the complainant.
3. The complainant kept on paying the monthly instalments to the OP No. 1 till such time it came to the notice of the complainant that the OPs have not given the correct documents pertaining to the car for the purpose of registration and insurance.
4. The said car met with an accident on 9.1.1998 and was badly damaged. The information of the said accident was immediately given to the Insurer namely M/s National Insurance Company, Faridabad and the said car was got repaired at M/s Continental Auto Service, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The total cost of the said repairs came to the tune of Rs. 1,55,129/- which was paid by the complainant and necessary claim was lodged with the Insurance Company for the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the said repairs.
5. Insurance Company during the process of investigation for processing the claim of the complainant demanded the original registration certificate and the Hire Purchase Agreement with the OP No. 1 the Financer for their verification in respect of the said car. Accordingly the complainant made repeated requests to the OPs for supply of Registration Certificate and the Hire Purchase Agreement for the said purpose.
6. The OPs despite repeated requests did not supply either the registration certificate or the hire purchase agreement for enabling the complainant to successfully satisfy the Insurance Company for processing the claim. Prompted by the insensitive attitude of the OP No 1, the complainant discontinued the payments of instalment w.e.f. July 1998.
7. The complainant had to issue a registered legal notice dated 12.12.1999 calling upon the OPs to furnish the original registration certificate and the copy of hire purchase agreement within 15 days . The OP No. 1 & 2 despite service, neither replied, nor complied with the said notice.
8. The complainant got suspicious about their conduct and went to the concerned Transport Authority, for obtaining duplicate Registration Certificate from where it was learnt that the registration number provided by the respondent no. 2 and displayed on the number plate of the said car as well as inscribed in the warranty book was a fake one and in fact it pertains to a Maruti 800 car.
9. The OPs issued a demand notice dated 17.5.1999 for payment of instalments in response to which the complainant vide letter dt. 17th May, 1999 handed over the vehicle with the clear objection that the entire amount will be paid only after getting the original registration certificate from them and the car should be kept in their custody in good usable condition.
10. According to the complainant he suffered various losses due to the negligence and contumacious conduct coupled with deficiency in service rendered by the respondents and is entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,72,154/- as damages and compensation with interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount, deposited with the OP No. 1 and 2 and also same rate of interest on the amount of the insurance claim that could have been received by the complainant after the accident of the vehicle on 9.1.1998.
11. In its defence the OP No.1 came up with the plea that the complainant was interested in having a CEILO car on hire purchase basis. The car and the dealer were the choice of the complainant. Accepting the offer of the complainant, it agreed to give the car on hire purchase basis. The complainant agreed to pay a total hire purchase charges of Rs. 5,95,860/- payable in 60 monthly hire instalments. The OP No.1 was to remain the owner of the vehicle till the entire amount under the agreement was paid by the complainant and on such payment the OP No.1 was to become the owner of the car. Shri Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal stood guarantor for due performances of the agreement dated 04.04.1997 on the part of the complainant. The complainant took over the delivery from the OP No. 2 on the payment of the entire amount by OP No.2. However, the complainant became irregular in payment of the hire money and now a sum of Rs. 2,49,375/- is outstanding as hire money and a sum of Rs. 1,02,110/- towards incidental charges for late payment which they have failed to pay inspite of repeated requests and demands.
12. That complainant executed hire purchase agreement, copy of which was supplied to them. Whatever payments made by the complainant were duly credited to his account and a proper receipt was issued for the amounts paid by them.
13. That the issue of the registration certificate was the responsibility of the dealer and OP No.1 has nothing to do in this regard. It is not aware of any overwriting or any irregularity in the alleged documents. The complainant had defaulted in payment and a sum of Rs. 3,51,485/- is due on account of the hire purchase and incidental charges. The complainant has no justification to withhold the payment of the hire money and incidental charges as custody of the vehicle was with the complainant, they are liable to pay the hiring and incidental charges.
14. That as the OP No.1 is the owner of the vehicle it is are at liberty to deal with it in the manner it likes. It is not admitted that the complainant handed over the vehicle of his own on 7th May, 1999. Representative of OP No. 1 went to repossess the vehicle, and thereafter, the vehicle was handed over to the OP No. 1 by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any amount or relief as alleged.
15. In its reply the OP No.2 averred that it is wrong to suggest that the OP No. 2 arranged any finance for the complainant and /or expressed its willingness to arrange the same as alleged or at all. The complainant approached the OP No. 2 for purchase of a Ceilo Car and enquired whether finance could be arranged for the same. The OP No. 2 on enquiry from the complainant gave a list of finance companies as is the normal practice. However, it was the complainants sole choice as to from whom they wished to get their car financed in which event the OP No. 2 cannot be held liable for any act/omissions of OP No. 1 or any third party. Payment of Rs. 76,060/- as margin money does not included charges for registration or insurance as alleged. Insurance was separately paid by the complainant to National Insurance Company Ltd., no registration charges were paid by the complainant to OP No. 2 nor was the registration of the said vehicle done by the OP No. 2. The complainant themselves got the registration done and not through OP No. 2 . The OP No. 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the registration and financing of the said car.
16. That total cost of the car was Rs. 5,05,060/-, Rs. 76,060/- was paid by the complainant to Jainsons Financial Services (P) Ltd., as margin money. Rs. 3,69,000/- was received from OP No.1 1 and the balance of Rs. 60,000/- was allowed as a subvention to the complainant as per policy of OP No. 3. OP No.2 only arranged delivery of the car to the customer but the registration of the car was not done by the OP No. 2 . The invoice as received by OP No. 2 from Daewoo Motors i.e. OP No. 3 was forwarded to the complainant at the time of delivery. There is no overwriting in the warranty book as is evident from the document produced by the complainant. All the warranty benefits were given to the complainant, and therefore, the said allegation with respect to the warranty book is irrelevant and hence denied.
17. That the warranty of the said car expired in 1998 and the complaint is being raised now in the year 2000, i.e. 2 years from the expiry of warranty. If the complainant has any complain whatsoever in this regard, it should be maintainable against the Daewoo Motors, OP No. 3 and not OP No. 2 as the said car was directly booked with Daewoo and the invoice with respect to same was issued by OP No. 3 itself and not OP No. 2.
18. OP No.2 denied that it intimated the complainant that the documents of transport authority would be furnished through OP No. 1 as the OP No. 2 is not aware from where and through whom the complainant got the registration of his car. The OP No. 2 is no way connected to OP No. 1 and cannot be held liable to the acts and omission of OP No. 1.
19. That for two years after delivery the complainant carried on driving the car without registration certificate and did not bother to contact the authorities for the same, earlier. Only after the accident did the complainant raise these objections as he was not interested in using the car anymore. The losses enumerated are frivolous and baseless.
20. OP No.3 came up with the following pleas:-
(i) That the complainant has shown no cause against the OP No. 3 and the name of the OP No. 3 ought to be removed from array of parties.
(ii) That OP No. 3 is an incorporated company and the OP No. 2 was its Authorised Sale and After Sale Service Dealer at Faridabad. The dealership of the OP No.2 2 has been terminated w.e.f. 10.02.2000. Business relations between the OP No. 2 and 3 were on principal to principal basis and OP No. 3 had no say or control on the management of the business of OP No. 2
(iii) OP No. 3 were not at all involved in the registration of the car and its finance transaction nor did it were receive any letter or notice from the complainant or any of the OPs regarding the subject accident of the complainants car. It is vehemently denied that the complainant has suffered due to any act attributable to OP No. 3 or that there was any negligence on the part of OP No. 3.
(iv) The complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 3
(v) OP No.3 3 being the manufacturer of the product was not at all involved in the registration of the car and its financing.
(vi) OP No.3 are not liable for payment of any sort of damages and compensation to the complainant as claimed.
21. As is apparent from the aforesaid rival claims and contentions of the parties the main allegation of the complainant is against non-issuance of Registration Certificate by OP No.1 and 2. There is no dispute about the delivery of the car and also arranging of finance by OP No.1 and there are no allegations of vehicle being defective. The role of the OPs is distinct and independent of each other.
22. As regards OP No.1 it was only to arrange the finance as per hire purchase agreement and arranged for the entire amount pursuant to which the car was delivered to the complainant. There was no term of agreement between the complainant and OP No.1 to provide Registration Certificate. Rather obligation was upon the complainant in terms of 2(f) of the Agreement that the name of OP No.1 is hypothecated as owner of the vehicle in the R.C. On the face of it the charge of deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 in any manner cannot stick as OP No.1 had duly performed part of its obligation.
23. As regards role of OP No.2 it was its obligation to provide and arrange for the Registration Certificate in original for the complainant. The complainant is not in possession of the Registration Certificate and OP No.2 has failed to produce any documentary evidence either from Transport Authority or from any other source that it arranged or furnished R.C. and delivered the same to the complainant.
24. As regards the role of OP No.3 it is the manufacturer and appears to be a performa party as OP No.2 was its dealer and the entire obligation, if any, of providing R.C. was that of OP No.2. Therefore OP No.2 alone can be held guilty for deficiency in service.
25. However, when complainant was not provided R.C. of the vehicle it returned the vehicle to OP No.1 vide letter dated 17th May 1999 and thereby discharged its liability qua loan amount.
26. However, it is pertinent to mention here that OP No.1 has invoked arbitration proceedings and obtained an award in its favour and the complainant has challenged the award. These are independent proceedings. Scope of the instant complaint is only for deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 in not furnishing Registration Certificate and thereby forcing the complainant to return the car and also suffer other liabilities.
27. Foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the complaint against OP No.2 alone in the following terms:-
(i) OP No.2 shall pay Rs. 1 lac as compensation to the complainant for the loss suffered by it and for mental agony and harassment and also depriving it from the legal and legitimate use of the vehicle for long.
(ii) OP No.2 shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation
28. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
29. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
30. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
31. Announced on 24th February, 2009.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj