BYFORD LEASING LTD. vs Kanwaljit Singh

THE appellant is a leasing Company engaged in arranging financing of motor vehicles. THE Company also helps its customers to buy motor vehicles booked by other persons on payment of price agreed to by the customer wanting to buy the same immediately. THE appellant made such a deal with the respondent in respect of a Maruti Van which was originally booked by M/s. Pooja Sales Corporation with the authorised dealer namely M/s. Saya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. for an agreed amount. With respect to the said deal, the customer Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, had the following grievances: (i) THE Citi Bank had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,02,614/-. THE opposite party had shown a credit of only Rs, 99,000/-. (ii) THE cost of the vehicle agreed to was Rs. 1,22,000/-. In fact the opposite party had charged Rs. 1,26,951/-. (iii) Expenses on road tax, registration, due were Rs. 1.350/-. In fact, Rs. 1,850/- had been charged. (iv) THE opposite party promised to give 1991 model. In fact, the model of the vehicle given was 1990.

THE complainant filed Complaint No. 2477/92 in District Forum-II. THE opposite party filed its detailed reply. On a consideration of the matter. District Forum accepted the explanation of the opposite party with regard to item Nos. (i) to (iii) mentioned above. With regard to item No. (iv) it was Held that the year of manufacture of the van, as per registration book, was 1990. THE year of the manufacture, it was pointed out, affected the re-sale price of the car and, accordingly, the Forum directed the opposite party to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5,000/- including cost of the proceedings and cost for the non-supply of jack etc. within one month failing which the opposite party was directed to pay interest @ 24%. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal. No appeal has been filed by the complainant in so far as finding of the District Forum on item No. (i) to (iii) is concerned. At the time of hearing only Mr. R.K. Swamy, authorised representative of the appellant appeared None appeared for the respondent. We have heard Mr. Swamy and have gone through the records.

Mr. Swamy submitted that, in fact, the year of manufacture of the vehicle in question was 1991. It was by a mistake that the Registering Authority had entered the year as 1990 in the Registration Book. He referred to Annexure ''B'' copy of the invoice, by which the vehicle was sold by the authorised dealer to M/s. Pooja Sales Corporation on 24.1.91. The Form 21 i.e., the Sale Certificate, shows the year of manufacture of the vehicle to be 1991. A comparison of Sale Certificate in Form 21, Annexure B and Certificate of Registration in Form 23, Annexure C, shows that whereas in the Sale Certificate the year of manufacture was given as 1991, the year of manufacture mentioned in R.C. was 1990. As the cover-note was issued on 28.12.90, in anticipation of the purchase of the car while processing the respondent''s application for financing the vehicle, the year of manufacture was described as 1990. Since the sale by the authorised dealer had not materialised by that time, the cover note issued by the Insurance Company did not contain engine number and chassis number of the vehicle. M/s. Saya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. sold the van to M/s. Pooja Sales Corporation vide invoice dated 24.1.91. The delivery of the vehicle to the respondent was effected on 25.1.91. There is no manner of doubt that by mistake the year of manufacture was wrongly entered in the R.C. as 1990 even though it was stated to 1991 in the invoice relating to the original sale by the authorised dealer. In fact, the van supplied was manufactured in 1991 in accordance with the agreement with the respondent.

WITH regard to jack etc. the delivery receipt Annexure ''E'' dated 25.1.91 shows that the vendee received the vehicle alongwith insurance cover-note and warranty book. If jack etc. had not been supplied alongwith vehicle, the respondent must have noted this fact in the receipt. In the absence of such a note in the receipt acknowledging delivery of the van and documents, it follows that jack etc. were supplied to the respondent alongwith the car. For these reasons, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. As a result, the complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties as well as District Forum-II. Appeal allowed.