JCBL AUTOS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JAI ASHOK MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. "

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.