Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Kharati Lal Handa

IN this revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''Act'') there is challenge to order dated 9.4.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short, ''State Commission'') in Appeal No. 203 of 2008. Brief facts are that Respondent/ complainant approached the petitioner/ opposite party in July, 2007 for purchasing Santro car against loan arrangement. The officials of petitioner directed him to approach ICICI Bank officials who had installed their counter in the premises of the petitioner. Respondent was told to complete certain formalities by way of submitting certain documents and to pay an amount of Rs. 68,440 (25% of the total ex -showroom price) for advancement of the loan. Consequently, he completed all the formalities and paid Rs. 68,440 in the month of July. Thereafter, ICICI Bank sanctioned loan amount to the respondent in the month of July.

IT was further averred that petitioner had offered a scheme of rebate of Rs. 10,000 on total car price at the disposal of the old car at the time of purchasing of the said car. Consequently he had sold the car bearing No. HR -3C -5600 to Sh. Parkash Chand Sharma of District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and registering authority, Panchkula, issued NOC on 24.9.2007 in his favour. Respondent had taken delivery of the vehicle in the month of July, 2007 from the petitioner and he was allotted temporary No. CH -12T -6608 valid for one month from the date of issuance. However, sale letter was not issued to him, although he approached the petitioner several times for issuance of the same to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority, Chandigarh. Although he had been visiting the petitioner regularly since August, 2007, yet it did not entertain the request for issuance of sale letter. Even legal notice dated 31.7.2007 served upon petitioner had no effect. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. Petitioner contested the complaint. It admitted that respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 69,440 in all but stated that the documents submitted by him to the ICICI Bank were not correct and due to this fact payment of loan was made by the ICICI Bank very late, after the discrepancies in the documents were rectified. The ICICI Bank had paid a sum of Rs. 1,91,430 to the petitioner on 28.10.2007 and the respondent paid another sum of Rs. 1,855 in cash on 22.11.2007 and thus the amount was delayed for about three months. Apart from it, still an amount of Rs. 6,715 was to be taken from the respondent which was not deposited despite repeated requests. The rebate of Rs. 10,000 was to be given by Hyundai Motors Ltd. if a customer sells his old car and transfers R.C. in the name of purchaser but since respondent did not submit requisite documents to claim exchange bonus, so. Rs. 10,000 were not paid. It denied other allegations and stated that the respondent himself had failed to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority in time due to lapses on his part, so, it was not liable for any deficiency.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, Chandigarh (for short, ''District Forum''), vide order dated 4.3.2008 allowed the complaint and passed the following directions: The OP is directed to issue sale letter to the complainant immediately and to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation. It shall also reimburse the complainant for the amount of insurance, if any, spent by him. If the amount of compensation is not paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, it shall be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.2.2007 till realization. The OP is also directed to pay Rs. 5,500 to the complainant as costs of proceedings. The OP is again directed to comply with the general directions issued by this Forum in Mrs. Sangita and Anr. v. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, decided on 18.1.2008 to supply the documents of title/sale letter and other necessary documents to the purchasers of vehicle while giving the delivery of vehicles to them.

BEING aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same vide the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

IT has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent had given an undertaking on 24.7.2007 to the petitioner at the time of purchase of the car that respondent would collect the documents including the sales certificate from the petitioner after making full payment of the car. Since, respondent failed to comply with the terms of undertaking given by him and failed to make the payment of balance amount of Rs. 6,715, hence there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that substantial amount of the price of the car had been paid by the respondent and even assuming for arguments sake that small amount was due, the petitioner could not refuse to issue the sale letter to the respondent. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission.

DISTRICT Forum in its order has held: It is yet another case in which the OP -Automobile dealer did not give sale letter to the complainant along with the vehicle. It this case also the loan was sanctioned by ICICI Bank whereas 25% of the total ex -showroom price of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 68,440 was paid by the complainant in cash vide receipt Annexure C -3. According to the OP the complainant had given an undertaking. (Annexure R -2) that he would collect the documents of the car after the OP has received full payment of the vehicle from the Bank/DMA/DSA and that he would not hold the OP responsible for any loss or damage accruing as a result of non -delivery of ownership documents of the vehicle so long as full payment along with the penalty, if any for the same was received by the OP. The contention of the OP is that the complainant had not come to make the payment of Rs. 6,715 and to receive the documents though the same were ready and, therefore, they were not deficient in rendering service. We are dealing with a number of cases in which the automobile dealers had delivered the vehicles to the purchasers while retaining the sale letters with them. In case Mrs. Sangita and Anr. v. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Co. Ltd. and Others, general directions ordered to be issued by this Forum under Section 14(1)(f) read with Section 14(1)(hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to all the automobile dealers to issue sale letters or documents of title along with the delivery of the vehicle. On account of this unfair trade practice being adopted by the automobile dealer, disputes are arising not only with the automobile dealers but with the insurance companies and others, (in case of death of owner/ purchaser). The OP was not obliged to give delivery of the vehicle till it received the full amount of loan from the Bank or the complainant. However, when once the delivery of the vehicle is given to the complainant, the OP was legally bound to issue a sale letter and to deliver the same to the complainant along with the vehicle. It may be mentioned that it is necessary for the complainant to get the vehicle registered within a specified period prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and for the purpose of registration the sale letter and other documents to be issued by the OP were necessary, which it did not issue. The result was that the complainant could not get it registered with the Registering Authority. Needless to mention that the validity of the temporary registration is limited to 30 days and the vehicle could not be driven on the road thereafter. Since, July, 2007, the vehicle has not been registered so far and the complainant is unable to ply the same on road. The complainant has spent huge amount for the purchase of the vehicle. On the one hand, he is being deprived of the interest on the amount of Rs. 68,440 paid by him to OP -1 and on other hand he is liable to pay interest on the amount of loan taken by him from the ICICI Bank but he cannot make use of the vehicle without the "certificate of registration for which the sale letter is necessary. The OP is continuing to be owner of the vehicle till the same is sold by it to the complainant through a sale letter but unfortunately the complainant has been burdened with the responsibility of maintaining the vehicle, protecting it from theft and damage and also spending money on its insurance. These acts of the OP in converting the owner of the vehicle into a caretaker certainly cause harassment, mental and physical to the complainant. In case, the full sale amount was not paid by the complainant to the OP, the later was not obliged to deliver the car. However, if it has delivered the car to the complainant, it is duty bound to issue the sale letter to him. If the OP chose to deliver the vehicle even when full amount was not paid it could recover the remaining amount, if any, through legal means but certainly it cannot adopt illegal means as in the present case to withhold the documents for recovering any amount which is not even proved to be due from him.

THE State Commission concurring with the District Forum, dismissed the appeal in limine and observed: 10. There is no dispute about it that the respondent had purchased Santro Car from the appellant and had paid Rs. 68,440 to the appellant in cash vide receipt Annexure C -3. He had further paid Rs. 1,000 as admitted by the appellant. It is next stated that the loan was to be sanctioned by ICICI Bank and since documents submitted by respondent were not complete, so, it took about three months to disburse the loan and ultimately ICICI Bank sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,91,430 and paid to the appellant and some amount was paid in cash by the respondent i.e. Rs. 1,855 on 22.11.2007 but still did not pay Rs. 6,715.

The appellant had taken contradictory stand. In the written reply it is stated that it was always ready to deliver the documents but the respondent did not get the same intentionally. But then another plea was taken that since respondent had not paid Rs. 6,715 so, sale letter, etc. were not delivered. Sale letter was not delivered when appellant filed written reply. There is no document to suggest that the sale letter was sent by the appellant to respondent through courier service or registered (sick) but the respondent had refused to accept the same. It certainly amounts to unfair trade practice for not delivering the sale letter on the plea that small amount had not been paid by the customer. If the customer had not paid any part of the sale consideration, then it was upto the dealer not to handover of possession of the vehicle. Once the delivery of the vehicle had been handed over and major portion of the price amount had been paid then it was incumbent upon the dealer not to withhold sale letter or other document, so, as to deprive the customer/purchaser the right for getting the vehicle registered.

Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant in spite of the fact that he was having only temporary registration number continued to drive the vehicle and he had covered sufficient distance in that period, may be that but he had plied the vehicle illegally at his own risk.

COUNSEL for the appellant also brought to our notice photocopy of Annexure A -2 which is alleged to be signed by the respondent stating that respondent had undertaken that the appellant would not be responsible for any loss/damages accruing as a result of non -delivery of the ownership documents as long as full amount along with penalty, if any for the same was not made to be dealer (Ultimate Automobiles, Chandigarh). Even if it is presumed that this letter was get signed from the respondent then also the appellant was not entitled to withhold sale letter, etc. for not making payment of small amount. According to this letter appellant was to receive the full amount from the financer.

THERE is no letter on the file that the appellant had ever written to the respondent that a small amount of Rs. 6,715 still remained due and he should make payment of the same before the delivery of the sale letter to him. It had not been detailed as to how the amount of Rs. 6,715 remained due. On the other hand, it was argued that the appellant was ready to handover sale letter but the respondent did not demand the same, although, he had come several times for getting service done. It appears to be incorrect and just an afterthought. In our opinion, appellant had indulged in unfair trade practice. If the amount had not been paid then he should not have delivered the vehicle. Once he had delivered the vehicle, then he was bound to deliver the documents also. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal and as such it is dismissed in limini. 12. It is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Company, : II (2011) CFJ 19 (SC) : IV (2011) SLT 303 : 2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed:

Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two Fora.

In the present case, admittedly respondent had made substantial amount of the payment. Even assuming for arguments sake that small amount was due but none the less, petitioner under no circumstances could withhold the sale letter. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to issue the sale letter to the respondent, when petitioner itself has handed over the vehicle in question to the respondent. For recovering the balance amount of Rs. 6,715 petitioner could seek separate remedy available to him. By not handing over the sale letter, the petitioner has committed deficiency in service. Under these circumstances, both Fora below rightly allowed the complaint of the respondent.

Hence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in impugned order passed by the State Commission. There is no merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only).

COST be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account'' of this commission within four weeks, failing which petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. List on 7.3.2014 for compliance.