A.P. Sahi, President

Heard Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Sharma for the Respondent No.l, Mr. Pawan Kumar for Respondents No.2 to 5 and Mr. Vikas Nautiyal for the Respondent No.6.

2. This is a very unfortunate dispute which seems to have engaged the attention of this Commission in a Revision Petition filed more than 11 years ago. The narration of facts as unfolded hereinafter would indicate the complexity that has been created on account of this pendency and which also tells upon our working system.

3. A Maruti Alto model vehicle was purchased by the Respondent/Complainant on 25.07.2012 from the Petitioner. A sale certificate in Form-21 was issued by the Petitioner/dealer to the Complainant which is extracted herein under: -



4. An Insurance coverage from National Insurance Company was also taken which is also extracted herein under: -



5. The Complainant alleged that when she took the vehicle for registration, on going through the documents she found that the year of manufacture of the vehicle was mentioned as November, 2011. She then complained about the vehicle manufactured earlier to be sold in 2012 under the impression that it was a 2012 model. She accordingly alleged that she made personal visits to the Petitioner - Dealer for rectification in August, 2012 and after repeated requests the Petitioner - Dealer issued another Form-21 sale certificate indicating the month and year of manufacture as March, 2012. The same is extracted herein under: -



6. The Petitioner attempted to justify the issuance of this second sale certificate on the strength of the invoices of the vehicle which according to the Petitioner had been received from the manufacturer M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on 18th March, 2012. The said invoice is extracted herein under: -



7. The District Commission, in our opinion, after examining the facts very appropriately decided CC/186/2013 on 09.04.2014 giving the following directions: -

                   "[a] To do the needful and bear all the expenses of getting the. vehicle in question registered with the Registering Authority;

                   [b] To pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service;

                   [c] To pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation."

8. Two Appeals were filed, one by the Complainant claiming further reliefs of enhancement including replacement of vehicle and the Dealer filed an Appeal assailing the liability fixed by the District Commission as quoted above.

9. The State Commission allowed the Appeal of the Complainant, and partly that filed by the Petitioner as well, by setting aside the orders of the District Commission. The operative part of the order passed by the State Commission is extracted herein under: -

                   "(i) Appellants/Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to replace the vehicle in question with a brand new car of the same make & mode! of 2012, free of charge. In case the car of the same make & model-2012 is not available, then the latest mode! of the same be supplied to the complainant, by charging or refunding the difference of amount/cost of the previous car i.e. Rs. 2,42,988/- as per Annexure C-l within 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

                   (ii) The respondent/complainant shall, hand over Maruti Alto LX BS-IV (Colour Superior White) car in question to Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2, complete in all respects and execute the requisite documents, if any, in their favour, for vesting the ownership of the same in them, at the time of replacement thereof, with a brand new car.

                   (iii) The direction of the District Forum to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant is set aside.

                   (iv) Opposite Parties No.l and 2 shall pay Rs. 10,000/-, as costs of litigation, as awarded by the District Forum.

                   (v) AH other directions given, and reliefs granted by the District Forum, in the impugned order, subject to the modification, aforesaid, which are contrary to and, in variance of this order, shall stand set aside."

10. A perusal of the said order would indicate that as against the order of the District Commission, the State Commission had directed replacement of the vehicle and the purchased vehicle had to be returned back to the Dealer, with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost and in addition thereto if the replacement of the vehicle was not possible, then the latest model of the same car was to be supplied by charging or refunding the difference of the amount as indicated in relief clause 15 (i).

11. At the outset, we may point out that this is not a case relating to any manufacturing defect or deficiency in services relating to any defect in the vehicle.

12. The Complainant had set up a case as if the Petitioner had supplied a vehicle manufactured in 2011 displaying it to be a vehicle of 2012. It is this dispute which was raised by the Complainant on the ground that the vehicle was not being registered due to its year of manufacture.. Be that as it may, in our prima facie opinion, the District Commission very appropriately directed the Petitioner to get the vehicle registered and bear all the expenses in relation thereto but instead the Petitioner filed an Appeal, and the Complainant also did not lag far behind and independently filed another Appeal claiming the relief of replacement of the vehicle. We do not prima facie find any justification for either of them to have preferred Appeals without there being a manufacturing defect in the vehicle or any deficiency in the services relating to the vehicle.

13. The Complainant alleged as if she was given an impression that the vehicle was of the year 2012. In our opinion at this stage there appears to be no misrepresentation for the simple reason that the vehicle was of the year 2011. It is after receipt of the said documents that the Complainant insisted upon the same being incorrect and it is on her asking that the second sale certificate Form-21 was prepared and issued by the Petitioner changing the year of manufacture to March, 2012. Thus, the Complainant cannot claim that she had no knowledge about the year of manufacture and it was at her insistence that the second sale certificate was issued by changing the year of manufacture.

14. At the same time, we also find that the Petitioner seems to have issued the second sale certificate on the presumption of the invoice of the vehicle . which was of 18th March, 2012.

15. This could not have been done only because the Petitioner had received the vehicle from the manufacturer through the invoice on 18th March, 2012. The date of manufacture would not get altered merely because it was being sold in the year 2012. Year of manufacture remains constant and therefore this desire of the Complainant to get the year of manufacture changed and the enthusiasm of the Petitioner by offering another sale certificate by changing the year of manufacture was incorrect.

16. The arguments centered around the fact that a vehicle once purchased should be registered within one month. This completely overlooks the fact that the registration has to be got done within one month only from the date of purchase and the date of manufacture of the vehicle may not have any relevance so far as the customer/buyer or purchaser is concerned. The Complainant therefore unnecessarily invited this trouble on the ground that the registering authorities were not registering the vehicle as it was manufactured in the year 2011. We do not find any force in this submission inasmuch as the Complainant had a valid sale certificate on the date when it was purchased by her and since there was a problem in the registration, we find that the District Commission was fully justified in directing the Petitioner, who was also responsible to have brought about the situation by issuing another sale certificate, to bear the entire expenses for getting the vehicle registered and as a matter of fact both the parties ought to have complied with the order of the District Commission when admittedly the vehicle had run only 2000 kms. when there was no defect in the vehicle at all. The registration issue could have been resolved by executing the order of the District Commission, but instead both the parties filed Appeals which led to the passing of the order by the State Commission on 29.05.2014 which is the order impugned herein.

17. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Complainant urges that there is no fault on the part of the Complainant and since the vehicle was not registered the Complainant was compelled to purchase another vehicle for her use and as such has suffered the loss of buying a new vehicle which according to him remained un-utilised due to want of registration. He therefore submits that the State Commission was fully justified in passing the impugned orders in the terms as indicated above.

18. Mr. Paul, submits that the Petitioner was nowhere at fault but he contends that the sale certificate that was issued subsequently was only to facilitate the request of the Complainant who was satisfied with it and the complaint came to be filed later on without there being any defect or deficiency in the vehicle or the services rendered in respect thereof.

19. What we find is that certain interim orders passed by this Commission need to be mentioned. The first order passed on 04.09.2014 when the present Revision Petition was filed by the Petitioner is extracted herein under:-

                   "Issue notice to the contesting respondent No.l for 12.12.2014. Before the next date, the petitioners shall place on record a copy of the invoice at the time of sale of the vehicle to respondent No.l.

                   In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed."

20. On 12.12.2014, the Revision Petition was admitted subject to certain terms & conditions which is extracted herein under: -

                   "Admit. To be listed in due course.

                   Subject to petitioner depositing in this Commission a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- within four weeks from today, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.

                   It is stated by the Authorized representative of the respondent that the subject car has run for approximately 2,000 kms. It will be open to the petitioner to pick up the car from the premises of the respondent and keep in their custody."

21. Mr. Paul submits that the Petitioner has complied with the order of deposit and so far as the vehicle is concerned, it still is in the custody of the Respondent/Complainant and that the Petitioner did not opt to pick up the car and get its custody inasmuch as the ownership after issuance of the sale certificate was with the Respondent/Complainant and therefore the vehicle was of no use to the Petitioner nor could the Petitioner resell it or negotiate it. In the circumstances, the Petitioner did not take custody of the vehicle and it has remained throughout with the Respondent/Complainant.

22. On the discussions hereinabove, we find that so far as the Petitioner is concerned there is a deficient act on its part of issuing the second sale certificate that had changed the year of manufacture. To that extent the Petitioner was responsible which has led to this complex situation. However, the Respondent - Complainant had also contributed towards this by asking for a change of the year of manufacture and therefore this contribution on the part of the Complainant mitigates the deficiency of the Petitioner by providing the second sale certificate. Both the parties therefore seem to be equally responsible for this situation but the fact is that the vehicle remained with the Respondent - Complainant throughout. There was no defect in the vehicle and the possession of the vehicle for these long years has neither alluded any benefit to the Petitioner nor has the Respondent been able to independently enjoy the ownership of the vehicle in the absence of a valid registration. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent No.l submits that the vehicle is still available with the Respondent. The vehicle is of 2011 and 15 years have passed by. The life of the vehicle therefore has almost reached its expiry under the current Motor Vehicle Laws. We, therefore, find that the Petitioner cannot be saddled with the entire liability nor do we find any justification for the State Commission to have directed for replacement of the vehicle in the absence of any defect in the vehicle itself. As noted above, it was the document part which had led to this dispute and we find that the District Commission was fully justified in issuing the directions. We would have restored the order of the District Commission in the given circumstances of the case but that would once again be an exercise in futility keeping in view the fact that the vehicle is now 15 years old and has remained with the Respondent - Complainant. The order of the State Commission cannot be justified to the extent it directs replacement of the vehicle or paying any amount in lieu thereof as indicated in the impugned order. We, therefore, set aside both the orders dated 29.05.2014 passed by the SCDRC, UT Chandigarh in Appeal No. 189/2014 as well as the order of the District Commission dated 09.04.2014 in CC/186/2013 in view of the order which we are proceeding to pass now.

23. As noted above, when the present Revision Petition was entertained initially the operation of the impugned order was stayed on 04.09.2014 and then on 12.12.2014 the said order was modified to the extent that the interim order shall operate subject to the Petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.2,43,000/- before this Commission. The Petitioners in compliance thereof nave deposited the said amount which has been invested in an interest bearing account. .

24. A further direction had been given by this Commission that it will be open to the Petitioner to pick up the car and keep it in their custody. The Petitioner instead of. packing up the car has chosen to deposit the amount and admittedly the car remained in the custody of the Respondent - Complainant. The vehicle had run only 2000 kms. as recorded in the order of this Commission dated 12.12.2014. In the given circumstances of the case and the altered situation, after 15 years we find that in view of the observations made by us hereinabove, it would be just and expedient to reduce the liability of the Petitioner and also compensate the Respondent - Complainant to a certain extent. The reason given is that the Respondent has alleged that she had to purchase another car and could not utilise the vehicle in question nor is she in a position to do the same as on date. We, therefore, dispose of this Revision Petition with a direction that the amount of Rs.2,43,000/- deposited with this Commission together with interest accrued thereon shall be released to the Petitioner and the Respondent No.l - Complainant in the ratio of 50% each. The Revision Petition stands accordingly disposed of.