AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act, 2019) (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 20.07.2012, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 928/2012. In this, the Appeal by the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties was dismissed, thereby affirming the Order dated 09.04.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut ( “District Forum”) in CC No. 455 of 2009 wherein the complaint filed by the Complainant was allowed.
The instant Revision Petition was filed with 218 days delay and the delay was explained in the Application seeking condonation of delay, filed by the Petitioner. Vide order dated 18.12.2013, this Commission dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground of inordinate delay. Thereafter, on the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.01.2015 condoned the delay, the case was readmitted before this Commission and proceeded on merits.
For convenience, the parties are being referred to as mentioned in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. M/s Bhawani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. through Managing Director Narayan Das Maheshwari is referred to as the Complainant. Tai Pan Traders Ltd. through MD Manjit Singh Bala, Showroom is referred to as Opposite Party No. 1 (OP-1). Tai Pan Traders MD Alok Gautam is OP-2. Astra Cadets Authorized DSA ICICI Bank, Meerut through Director Atul Verma is referred to as OP-3. Astra Cadets Authorized DSA ICICI Bank, Meerut through Director Vipul Verma is OP-4.
Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant ‘Bhawani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd’ had approached OP-3 and OP-4, Astra Cadets Authorized DSA ICICI Bank, Meerut through Directors Atul Verma and Vipul Verma, for a bank loan to purchase a Mercedes Benz car. OP-3 & 4 quoted Rs.37,56,207/-, which included Rs.14,125/- for registration and Rs.87,934/- for insurance. The Complainant requested a VIP Registration No. 1111 for an additional Rs.50,000/-. Trusting OP-3 & 4, the Complainant paid Rs.50,000/- as an advance for booking the vehicle with OP-1, Tai Pan Traders Ltd., through MD Manjit Singh Bala, on 29.03.2008. OP-1 issued Receipt No. 2237 for the advance payment, but OP-3 only provided a photocopy, promising the original by courier.
On 02.04.2008, OP-3 & 4 informed him that Rs.30,00,000/- was sanctioned, and a cheque for Rs.29,29,450/- had been sent to OP-1. They requested him to pay the balance Rs.8,85,757/- towards the total price. He agreed and asked for adjustment of Rs.50,000/- advance. OP-3 & 4 assured him that this amount would be refunded after full payment. He paid the balance by cheque on 09.04.2008 and arranged to receive the car on 11.04.2008. However, upon visiting OP-1 on 11.04.2008, he learnt that the vehicle was not insured because the balance amount was not transferred. He independently insured the car and sought refund of Rs.50,000/- for booking; and Rs.87,934/- for the insurance included in the payment. OP-3 & 4 assured him that the refund, car bill, permanent Regn with VIP number 1111 and other records would be sent after the cheque clearance. The vehicle was delivered to him with Temporary Registration. After one month, he inquired about the permanent Regn No. Despite multiple visits and calls, OP-1 did not respond. About 10 months later, OP-1 deposited Rs.2,00,000/- into the Complainant's account for Registration, VIP number, and insurance without interest or the Regn Certificate with VIP No. 1111. Due to lack of valid registration he had to park the car in a rented garage at Rs.2400/- per month since purchase, and could not use it legally on the road. He continued paying EMIs of Rs.66,200/- from 11.04.2008 and also Rs.88,000/- to ICICI Lombard for insurance. He issued a legal notice on 12.07.2009 to OPs, but no avail. Feeling aggrieved, he filed CC No. 455/2009 before the District Forum, seeking:
Direction to OP-1 and 2 to complete the car registration with VIP number 1111 and provide its Passbook.
Reimbursement of the EMI payments of Rs.66,200/- per month with 18% interest due to the negligence of the OPs.
Reimbursement of Rs.88,000/- paid towards car insurance with 18% interest.
Reimbursement of Rs.2400/- per month for garage rent.
Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for monetary & mental injury.
Rs.1,00,000/- for the cost of litigation.
In reply before the learned District Forum, OP-1 & 2 refuted the allegations and contended that they were not involved in facilitating any loan for the vehicle; instead, he had obtained the loan directly from ICICI Bank. Rs.50,000/- was paid for registration of the vehicle and asserted that no assurance of any VIP No.1111 was given by them. They asserted absence of any evidence for payment of Rs.50,000/-. OP-1 & 2 contended that they were wrongly implicated in the case and they committed no deficiency in service. Grant of a VIP number is under the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Officer and, as such, they could not intervene in the matter. They sought for dismissal of the complaint against them.
No reply or evidence was filed by Opposite Party No. 3 and 4, and no one appeared on their behalf to argue the case during the hearing before the Ld. District Forum. The District Forum in its Order dated 09.04.2012 accepted and allowed the complaint with the following directives: -
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant against the opponent No.1 and 2 is admitted.
The opponent No.1 and 2 is ordered to make available the registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant within one month, in addition to this, to pay the amount of premium Rs.66,200/- per month being paid against the loan taken by the complainant for the said vehicle with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of purchasing the said vehicle till the date of making available the registration certificate of the vehicle and also to pay the amount of Rs.88,934/- received for the loan with interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum from the date of receipt till date of payment within a month; in addition to this, to pay Rs.25,000/- as damages for mental and physical torture and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost, otherwise the complainant shall be at liberty to take action under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opponent No.1 & 2.”(Extracted from True Translation copy)
Being aggrieved by the District Forum order, the Petitioners/ OP-1 & 2 filed Appeal No. 928/2012 and the Appeal was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 20.07.2012 as follows:
“In the light of the aforesaid legal precedents, from the perusal of aforesaid legal principles and arguments of learned counsels for both the parties and case file it is apparent that the amount of money has been given by the respondents to appellant Tai Pan Traders Ltd. for the purchase of vehicle in question and registration number and VIP number, but the appellant has not made available the registration number and VIP number comes under the classification of unfair trade practice, which represents lack of service by the appellants.
On the basis of above analysis, we reach at this conclusion that in the light of aforementioned facts/ arguments and legal precedents, the appeal in question being forceless is liable to be dismissed on merits and no interference of any kind is warranted in the order of District Forum.
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 09.04.2012 passed in Complaint No.455/2009 by the District Forum, Meerut is reaffirmed.
Parties of both sides to bear their own costs of appeal.”
(Extracted from True Translation copy)
Being aggrieved by the Order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioners i.e. Taipan Traders Ltd and Manjeet Singh Bala, have filed the instant Revision Petition. Upon notice, as per the Order dated 15.07.2015, on the submission of the Counsel that Respondent No. 2 & 3 are proforma Respondents and Petitioner seeks to delete them, Respondent No. 2 & 3 were deleted from the array of parties. Also, Respondent No. 4, Alok Gautam Ex Sales Manager, Taipan Traders Ltd did not appear despite service by publication in ‘The Tribune’ and ‘Punjab Kesri’ dated 14.02.2017. He was, therefore, proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.07.2017. However, upon filing IA No. 4616/2018 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order against Respondent No. 4, vide Order dated 13.01.2023, the said IA was allowed, and the ex-parte order was revoked.
In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioner reiterated the facts of the case and argued that the Complainant had taken the delivery of the car on 11.04.2008 and also obtained the Registration Certificate from the Registration Authority, Chandigarh vide Regn No. CH04C-1373 on 24.05.2008 itself. This crucial information was obtained by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Thus, the contention of Complainant as regards non-receipt of VIP No. 1111 from the Petitioner is entirely false and unfounded, as he misled the fora with focus on the VIP number, not the Regn No. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the Petitioners charged any additional fee for providing any VIP number. The Petitioner solely facilitated the normal registration process with the Registration Authority. Providing a VIP number is beyond its purview, and within the domain of Registration Authority. He further contended that the District Forum and State Commission overlooked the critical fact. When the Petitioner filed an Application to summon the vehicle for a Technician Investigation Report to ascertain whether the said vehicle was in put to use, without deciding this crucial Application, the complaint was allowed. He further argued that, with respect to the same matter, the Complainant had also filed a police complaint in Police Station, Meerut City on 14.01.2009 and the matter was settled between the parties through a compromise on 29.01.2009 itself and, the Petitioner paid him Rs. 2,00,000/- by Cheque which was encashed. Upon settlement, the Complainant had explicitly stated that he had no further grievances against the Petitioners. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been dismissed.
The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Complainant reiterated the facts of the Complaint and contended that the orders passed by both the lower forums were well-reasoned and based on thorough consideration of the facts and evidence presented. Therefore, there is no justification for interference at revision stage. The Counsel advocated for upholding the order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, affirming the decisions of the lower fora.
The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 argued that he has no liability in the matter. He was held liable by the District Forum solely due to his past employment with the Petitioner, from which he resigned well before the judgment date of 09.04.2012. Hence, it was incumbent upon both the parties to remove his name from the case. He asserted that the impugned orders of both fora were without due consideration of all facts and circumstances, and without granting Respondent No. 4 a fair hearing. He pointed out that the fora failed to acknowledge that the Complainant had already entered into a settlement and received Rs.2,00,000/-, thereby revealing lack of honesty in pursuing this case. The motive of the Complainant is dubious. As he was merely an employee and did not benefit from the sale and no liability could be imposed upon him. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel urged for the dismissal of the claim and requested that the Complainant refund the amount previously received.
The primary issue in this case revolves around the alleged failure of the Petitioner to provide VIP Regn No (VIP No. 1111), despite receiving payment for it. Additionally, the dispute involves delay and alleged negligence in providing the registration certificate for the vehicle, resulting in the Complainant incurring expenses and being unable to use the vehicle as per law. Moreover, there is a contention of excessive damages awarded by the lower fora, which as the petitioner is disproportionate.
The Complainant contended that OP-2 & 3, after conversing with OP-1 & 2 over the phone, informed him that he would need to pay Rs.50,000/- to OP-3 & 4 to obtain a VIP number as he sought. He claimed to have paid Rs.50,000/- to OP-3 & 4 on 29.03.2008 for this purpose. However, OP-1 & 2 denied these allegations, stating that the Complainant's claim of paying Rs.50,000/- for a VIP number was entirely false. They reiterated that no such payment was made for to them providing VIP number and asserted that no documentary evidence was brought on record to support such transaction, if any. Review of the Records reveal no evidence that Rs.50,000/- was paid by the Complainant to OPs for any such VIP number. Additionally, upon reviewing the cash acknowledgment Receipt No. 2237 dated 29.03.2008 issued by OP-1, it is noticed that the Rs.50,000/- was in fact paid as a booking amount for the car and not for VIP number.
Perusal of the complaint in the matter reveals that is rife with several allegations. It was alleged that the vehicle in question had to be left dormant in a rented garage as it was without Registration Certificate (RC) and compensation was claimed. However, in the District Forum, the Petitioners filed an Application on 14.12.2011 seeking directions to summon the vehicle for a Technician's Report to ascertain if it was being used. This Application was in fact filed subsequent to the Petitioner obtaining information under RTI Act, 2005 from RTO, indicating that the vehicle was indeed registered in the name of the Complainant and the RC No. CH04C-1373 was issued to the Complainant on 24.05.2008 itself and it was valid till 25.06.2023. The same is on record. Intriguingly, the Complainant neither refuted nor asserted that the vehicle in dispute did not have the Regn No. required under law to use the same on public roads. Despite this crucial revelation, the District Forum ruled in favour of the Complainant, notwithstanding the fact that the car already had Regn No. Pertinently, the Complainant failed to disclose to both the District Commission and State Commission that the Regn Certificate vide Regn No. CH04C-1373 issued on 24.05.2008 and valid till 25.06.2023 was already obtained. Hence, the claim that the said vehicle remained unused in a rented garage due to non-issue of Regn Certificate is both illogical and untenable.
It is further observed that during the course of proceedings the OPs brought out that, as regards the same dispute, the Complainant had previously filed a complaint at Police Station, Meerut City. This complaint was settled between the parties through a compromise wherein the OPs paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant. Perusal of the said Compromise letter (Annexure-P/10) dated 29.01.2009 submitted by the Complainant before the Police Station with respect to the same cause of action against OP-1 Tai-Pan Traders Ltd on 14.01.2009 reveals that, as part of settlement with the OPs, the Complainant had received Cheque No. 638748 dated 29.01.2009 for Rs.2,00,000. The Complainant also stated that no further action was necessary and withdrew the complaint. Therefore, even after settling the dispute with the OPs, the Complainant continued to pursue the Consumer Complaint, without any mention of resolution of the matter. Even for the sake of argument, if he was not satisfied with the compromise and intended to continue with the subject Consumer Complaint to seek additional compensation, he ought to have brought out the same, amended the pleadings to seek higher compensation. The Complainant, however, took no steps in this direction at any stage. Therefore, the relief granted by the District Forum and State Commission are over and above the amount already received by him during the said concealed settlement.
Therefore, along with filing of the Consumer Complaint, the Complainant had also filed a police complaint with respect to the same matter in dispute against the OPs on 14.01.2009. This complaint was settled within 15 days in the form of a compromise between the parties on 29.01.2009. As part this settlement, the Complainant received Rs.2,00,000 from OP-1 vide Cheque No. 638748 dated 29.01.2009 and sought to withdraw the complaint and stated that he wants no further action in this regard (Annexure P/10). Therefore, effectively the main dispute between the parties with respect to purchase of the vehicle in question and associated issues were settled. However, at no stage the Complainant admitted this settlement and continued to assert that the petitioners deposited a Cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- into his account from the price of registration of the said Car/VIP No. 1111/Insurance, without any interest and without giving registration certificate. This contention of the Complainant is false.
While it is unclear as to why OP-1 & 2 have entered into settlement with the Complainant with respect to the said car, VIP No.1111 and insurance and paid Rs.2,00,000/-, evidently there might have been some deficiency in service of OP-1 & 2 and/or they were protecting their reputation in the market.
Thus, while the vehicle in question was already registered by the Road Transport Authority, Chandigarh on 24.05.2008 itself with validity till 23.06.2023 (Annexure P/18). Therefore, the claim that the vehicle was without Registration No. is false and baseless. The Complainant maintained stoic silence in this regard and continued to state that the vehicle had no registration and it was left lying dormant in the garage and unable to use and claimed compensation in the form of Bank loan repayments, insurance and parking charges. Even as regards payment of Rs.50,000/- for VIP number there is no evidence on record to establish that the Complainant had paid Rs. 50,000/- for any special Regn No. The Complainant persisted with false accusations and continued to mislead the learned District Forum and learned State Commission as well. The Complaint filed and pursued was frivolous, vexatious and contained falsehood, concealment and misrepresentation of facts. The attempt to mislead the District Forum and State Commission is conspicuous.
Thus, there are material irregularities and infirmities in the orders of both the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission. This was due to material misrepresentation and concealment of facts by the Complainant.
Consequently, the order of the learned State Commission in FA No. 928 of 2012 dated 20.07.2012 is set aside and the Complaint before the learned District Forum is dismissed. The Revision Petition No. 2121 of 2013 is, therefore, allowed.
Considering the fact that the Complainant had knowingly resorted to pursuing the instant frivolous and vexatious complaint with falsehood, concealment and misrepresentation of facts and attempted to mislead the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission to gain undue advantage, there shall be some liability. The same is determined as Rs.1,00,000/-:
ORDERS
I. The Complainant/Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.50,000 to M/s Taipan Traders Limited - Opposite Party No.1 within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay the simple interest liable to be paid for such extended period is @ 12%;
II. The Complainant/Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit Rs.50,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid A/c of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut, within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay, the simple interest liable to be paid for such extended period is @ 12%.
III. The Complainant is directed to file a compliance report before this Commission, within three months from the date of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
If any amount is deposited by the Petitioners before this Commission or the State Commission, the same may be released along with interest accrued thereon, if any, to the respective Petitioners as per law.
All other pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.