The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by H.P.S. Mahal (Judicial Member) and Kiran Sibal (Member), overturned the decision of the District Commission. They sided with an appeal against Hyundai Motors and a connected seller regarding deficiency in service.Brief Facts of the CaseThe complainant wanted to buy a new Hyundai car from the seller. The seller promised...
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by H.P.S. Mahal (Judicial Member) and Kiran Sibal (Member), overturned the decision of the District Commission. They sided with an appeal against Hyundai Motors and a connected seller regarding deficiency in service.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant wanted to buy a new Hyundai car from the seller. The seller promised a Rs.50,000 exchange bonus for the complainant's old car. Even though the complainant received the exchange bonus and gave away the old car, there were delays in the delivery of the car purchased. Later, the old car was involved in a serious accident, causing legal issues for the complainant because they were still listed as the registered owner. Feeling tricked, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the seller and the manufacturer citing poor service and negligence. However, the District Commission rejected it, stating it was not valid. Now, the complainant is appealing this decision in the state commission, asserting their status as a consumer.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The seller argued that they sold a car to the complainant but did not take his old car in exchange because it was over 15 years old. The unhappy complainant then arranged for an independent third-party dealer to handle the exchange, and the seller only provided an agreement and an exchange bonus. The seller also claimed that since they didn't facilitate the exchange, take the old car, or receive payment, hence they didn't provide any service as ruled by the District Commission.
The manufacturers claimed that the case centered around the complainant buying and selling an old vehicle with the seller, and the manufacturer had no role in it. They emphasized that the complainant didn't make any specific allegations against the manufacturer, making the complaint against them lacked basis. Additionally, they argued that there was no direct agreement between the complainant and the manufacturer, and no payment was made to the manufacturer for the sale or any related services.
Observations by the Commission
The State Commission observed that the authentic documents, like the bill and tax invoice for the new car, were presented to the Regional Transport Office (R.T.O.) for registration of the new car. Furthermore, upon thorough review of the documentary evidence, specifically the statement provided by the Sales Manager of the seller during a police inquiry, it was disclosed that the Sales Manager acknowledged the buying and selling of one of the complainant's old cars through an exchange offer for a new car.
The Commission determined that it's a common business practice for sellers to take old cars in exchange for new ones, contributing to increased business and sales. This qualifies the complainant as a 'Consumer' according to the Consumer Protection Act. However, the District Commission overlooked this aspect, quickly dismissing the complaint without giving the complainant a chance to provide additional evidence. Because of this swift dismissal and the absence of an opportunity for both parties to present written responses or evidence, the court found it essential to send the case back for a new and impartial evaluation of the arguments.
The State Commission overturned the District Commission's decision and granted the appeal. Furthermore, the appeal was sent back to the District Commission with instructions to give the involved parties a fair chance to present their arguments.
Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. Charanpuneet Singh
Counsel for the Opposite Party: Adv. Kashish Garg & Adv. A.P.S. Kahlon