JCBL AUTOS PRIVATE LIMITED vs JAI ASHOK MALIK

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14.2.2005 passed by District Forum, Rohtak, whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant, the following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite party: "We direct the O.P. to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation along with litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000, to the complainant. Further the O.P. is directed to get the vehicle of complainant registered at Karnal after completing all the formalities by the complainant. Order be complied within two months. In case the awarded amount is not paid by the O.P. within the stipulated period, then interest at the rate of 9% shall be payable to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint till realisation."

THE facts as stated in the complaint have been highlighted in order to focus the controversy in the present appeal. According to the complainant, one Anup Singh, Sales Officer of the Global Toyota, Karnal-appellant met the complainant at his residence at Rohtak and convinced the complainant for buying a Qualis of bluish silver metallic colour for personal use instead of Tata Safari as both these vehicles have similar purchase price. THE complainant was further assured by him that the vehicle carry a guarantee period of two years and would be got registered by the appellant. A proforma invoice dated 19.6.2002 brought by the said Anup Singh was filled by the complainant, whereby he agreed to purchase B-3, Family Saloon, 10 seater, silver metallic colour Qualis for Rs. 6,16,500. According to the complainant, he handed over a cheque of Rs. 50,000 as booking amount and Anup Singh again met the complainant on the same day and informed him that the cheque in question has been misplaced somewhere and again a demand draft of Rs. 50,000 issued by the Central Bank of India was given to him. THE said Anup Singh delivered the Tata Qualis B-3 Model, bluesh silver metallic colour at the residence of the complainant on 11.7.2002 after receiving the balance amount through draft for Rs. 5,65,000 dated 11.7.2002 issued by Central Bank of India, Model Town, Rohtak. THEreafter the complainant accompanied Anup Singh on 12.7.2002 for completing the formalities at the office of the appellant situated at Karnal. A sum of Rs. 9,494 in cash was paid by the complainant towards enhanced price of the vehicle. THE delivery note and temporary registration certificate were also handed over to him after obtaining his signatures on blank papers. THEreafter the complainant replaced tyres of 195 mm in place of 175 mm by spending additional amount of Rs. 5,000. He also installed sterio worth Rs. 14,900 and incurred other expenses of Rs. 3,000 on accessories. THE complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 22,453 for insurance of the said vehicle to the New India Insurance Company Limited, Rohtak. THEreafter, he applied for registration of the said vehicle with the S.D.M., Rohtak being the Registration Authority. However, the Registration Authority refused to register the vehicle in question. THEreafter the complainant came to know that the vehicle supplied by the appellant is Euro-I and the same cannot be registered at Rohtak and also because the Rohtak falls in national capital region. THEreafter the complainant went to the office of the appellant at Karnal for getting the vehicle replaced with Euro-II so that the registration of the vehicle could be got done at Rohtak. THEreafter the complainant went abroad from 6.8.2002 to 8.5.2003. As the appellant has refused to change the vehicle in question, it resulted in monetary loss to him as he has taken loan of Rs. four lacs for the purchase of the vehicle. Under these circumstances, he invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum claiming that direction be issued to the appellant to replace the vehicle of the complainant with Euro-II and to pay Rs. 2,62,853, details of which have been given in para 14 of the complaint as compensation for monetary loss, harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant. On notice, the appellant contested the complaint. It was pleaded in the written statement that price of the Euro-I was enhanced to Rs. 6,24,000 by the manufacturer commencing from 1.7.2002. The complainant came to the show-room of the appellant at Karnal and selected to purchase B-3 metallic colour Qualis on 12.7.2002 along with a draft of Rs. 5,65,000 issued by the Central Bank of India. He also paid additional amount of Rs. 9,494 besides booking amount of Rs. 50,000 through Bank Draft dated 11.7.2002. He took the delivery of the vehicle from the show-room of the appellant on 12.7.2002 along with sales certificate as invoice of the vehicle. The appellant had informed the complainant that the vehicle in question is Euro-I and cannot be registered at Rohtak within radius of 100 kms from national capital region, but the complainant informed the appellant that he has some relation with an administrative officer and will manage to get it registered at Rohtak. It was also asserted that they have no connection whatsoever with Anup Singh and he has never been appointed as its sales officer. It was further stated that the said Anup Singh was never deputed to meet the complainant and a concocted story has been put up by the complainant. The jurisdiction of the District Forum, Rohtak to try the complaint has also been denied. The other pleas of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and non-maintainability of the complaint were also raised.

The District Forum after appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, returned a finding that the complainant had purchased the vehicle Euro-I at his own choice as in both the price lists Exs. R1 and R2 the price of Euro-I has been given whereas in the sale invoice Ex. R-3 and delivery note-R-5 the word Euro-II has not been mentioned. Accordingly, it was held that the complainant has failed to establish that the appellant has fraudulently supplied Euro-I instead of Euro-II to the complainant. At the same time, it was concluded that it was incumbent upon the opposite party to apprise the consumer that the vehicle in question could not be registered at Rohtak which has caused monetary loss, mental agony and harassment to the complainant and directed the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. one lac, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000 to the complainant. The appellant was further directed to get the vehicle in question registered at Karnal after completing all the formalities within a period of two months. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. At the out-set, a preliminary objection was raised by the Counsel representing the respondent that the appeal is barred by limitation because it has been filed after the expiry of period of 30 days as provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In support of the stand taken, he placed reliance on cases Ram Lal and Another v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; Vikram Dass v. Financial Commissioner and Others, AIR 1977 SC 2221; and Nek Ram v. Delhi Vidyut Board, II (2002) CPJ 401=2002 (3) CON.LT 554. He also contended that as no application for condonation of delay has been filed, the appeal could not be entertained. In this regard, reliance was placed on case N. Devdarshan, sole Prop. of M/s. Janata Maneswear v. Central Bank of India, IV (2003) CPJ 1 (NC)=2004 (1) CPC 412. The Counsel representing the appellant has vehemently opposed the submission made by taking plea that factual position has not been taken notice while making the submission in this regard from the side of the respondent. There is considerable merit in the stand taken from the side of the appellant. The certified copy of the order reveals that after the order was passed on 14.2.2005, the appellant had applied for the delivery of copy to the District Forum on 18.2.2005. There is endorsement on the certified copy of the judgment itself that it was supplied on 1.3.2005. The appeal in the State Commission was filed by the appellant on 17.3.2005. The period from 18.2.2005 to 1.3.2005 taken by the Copying Branch of the District Forum in preparation of the certified copy of the order has to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of 30 days so provided for filing the appeal. Manifestly, the appeal is within the statutory period of 30 days as laid down in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the objection raised from the side of the respondent in this regard.

IT is apparent that the entire case has been built up by the complainant on the allegations that Anup Singh, Sales Officer of the appellant has approached him on 19.6.2002 at Rohtak at his residence and pursuaded him to buy B-3 Metallic colour Qualis of cost Rs. 6,16,500 and thereafter he gave a demand draft of Rs. 50,000 issued by the Central Bank of India to said Anup Singh. IT is also the case of the complainant that another demand draft of Rs. 5,65,000 was also issued by the Central Bank of India, which was handed over to Anup Singh on 11.7.2002 and thereafter on the next day on 12.7.2002 he accompanied Anup Singh to the show-room of the appellant at Karnal and paid Rs. 9,494 additional amount in cash towards enhanced price of the Qualis and then obtained the delivery note and temporary registration certificate. No credible evidence has been led from the side of the complainant to establish the identity of Anup Singh. IT was all the more necessary for the complainant to have produced acceptable evidence on record that Anup Singh was the sales officer of the appellant because definite stand has been taken by the appellant that the so called Anup Singh was never appointed as sales officer of the appellant. There is a force in the stand taken from the side of the appellant that fictional story has been made up to introduce character of Anup Singh in order to confer jurisdiction to the District Forum at Rohtak. Otherwise, it is fully established on record that not only payment through Bank Draft as well as cash amount was made at the show-room of the appellant at Karnal but the delivery of the vehicle in question along with delivery note and temporary registration certificate were also obtained from the appellant at Karnal after signing the necessary documents by him. IT is totally inconceivable that on the blank papers signatures of the complainant were obtained, as sought to be pleaded by him. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the entire transaction of the sale of the vehicle in question has taken place at Karnal and in terms of the requirements of Section 11 of the Act, 1986 only District Forum, Karnal had jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and on this ground alone the complaint deserve to be rejected. Even on merits, as already noticed, the District Forum has not accepted the version of the complainant that he had purchased the vehicle Euro-I at the persuasion of the appellant rather a definite finding recorded by the District Forum is that the vehicle Euro-I was purchased as per choice of the complainant after verifying the price list so mentioned in the documents. The firm finding in this regard is that the complainant has failed to establish that Euro-I instead of Euro-II has been fraudulently delivered to the complainant by the appellant. The complainant has not chosen to file any appeal against that order in order to challenge the finding of the District Forum in this regard. The District Forum in clear terms have negated the stand of the complainant by holding that no deficiency of service can be attributed to the appellant in this regard. The most surprising part of this case is the contradictory approach of the District Forum in deciding the matter. After the version of the complainant has not been accepted that there was no deficiency of service as to the purchase of the vehicle in question, still it directed the appellant to get the vehicle in question registered at Karnal at its own expenses and further concluded that it was the duty of the appellant to have appraised the complainant that the vehicle in question could not have been registered at Rohtak. We fail to understand as to how such a responsibility could be attributed to the appellant because it is primarily function of the purchaser to get the vehicle in question registered from the competent registration authority. The appellant has performed its duty by issuing him a temporary registration certificate, which has been delivered to the appellant. Thus, under the circumstances, the finding of the District Forum in respect of awarding of Rs. one lac as compensation along with litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000 and other directions to the appellant to get the vehicle registered at Karnal as well as payment of interest @ 9% per annum, cannot be sustained as directions given on the face of it are illegal. It is fully established on record that the District Forum had allowed the complainant to misuse its authority by invoking the jurisdiction of the District Forum at Rohtak. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order, dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.