SUBHASH CHAND SHARMA vs INDRAPRASTHA AUTOMOBILE PVT.LTD. & ORS.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NORTH WEST CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.

DC/82/CC/75/2018 SUBHASH CHAND SHARMA PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O JAYANTI PRASHAD SHARMA R/O GAUTAM BUDDA NAGR JHAJHAR SIKANDRABAD,BULANDSHAHAR,UTTAR PRADESH-203203NORTH WEST,DELHI. .......Complainant(s) Versus INDRAPRASTHA AUTOMOBILE PVT.LTD. & ORS.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR,C/O B-72/4,WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA,NEW DELHI-110052NORTH WEST,DELHI.

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS C/O GATEWAY BUILDING,APPOLO BUNDER,MUMBAI-400001,INDIANORTH WEST,DELHI. .......Opposite Party(s) BEFORE: SANJAY KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE COMPLAINANT: NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY: NEMO DATED: 11/02/2026 ORDER Vide separate order present complaint is allowed.

We direct OP1 to pay compensation of Rs.

2,00,000/- (two lakh) and OP2 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.

2,00,000/- (two lakh).

We further direct OP1 & 2 to pay the above said amount within 30 days from the date of receiving of the present order.

In case of default OP1& 2 are further directed to pay the above said amount interest @9% p.a. till realization.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry.

The orders be uploaded on www.ejagriti.gov.in.

Announced in open Commission on 11.02.2026.

SANJAY KUMAR NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDENT MEMBER PR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V NORTH-WEST DISTRICT, GOVT.

OF NCT OF DELHI CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

CC.

No.75/2018 IN THE MATTER OF : SUBHASH CHAND SHARMA S/O JAYANTTI PRASHAD SHARMA R/O GAUTAM BUDDA NAGARR JHAJHAR SIKANDRABAD, BULANDSHAHAR, UTTAR PRADESH-203203 ….

COMPLAINANT VERSUS 1.

INDRAPRASTHA AUTOMOBILES PVT.

LTD.

THROUGH ITTS PROPRIETORS C/O B-72/4, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110052 …..

OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 2.

INDRA LTD. (THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS) C/O GATEWAY BUILDING, APPOLO BUNDER MUMBAI-400001, INDIA …..

OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2 ORDER 11.02.2026 Sh.

Sanjay Kumar, President 1.

The factual matrix of the present case is that complainant received a call from KiranTamta Customer Relation Manager on 18.07.2017 for providing newly launched model car of Mahindra XUV 500 for the special selected people and insisted to visit showroom at Wazirpur, Delhi.

The complainant visited the showroom of OP1 & 2 on 20.07.2017 along with son in law Mr.

Manish Dixit.

Ms.

KiranTamta explained the features and other specifications of the car and also offered the test drive and complainant asked for a quotation and other prices of the car.

The OP1 & 2 provided the details of the brand new car SUV 500 no.

R1.99 to the tune of Rs.

13,25,117/-.

2.

It is stated that Ms.

KiranTamta also told that the car is performing very well in the market and OP1 & 2 will provide every help in case of any problem.

It is stated that it was also promised that the delivery of the car would be within fifteen days time from the date of finalization and registration by the customer.

It is stated that complainant agreed to purchase the car as per promises and offers explained and applied for loan which was granted by HDFC Bank.

It is stated that complainant also expressed desire to get fancy number and the procedure was told by Ms.

KiranTamta for applying fancy number.

3.

It is stated that complainant applied the fancy number in the Uttar Pradesh on 29.07.2017 but OP1 & 2 failed to complete the registration procedure within the stipulated time i.e.

29.08.2017 due which the validity of registration number got expired and complainant suffered loss of Rs.

5000/- and also after long delay in registration of the car.

KiranTamta assured the complainant that delivery would be completed by 23.08.2017 with all registration process and payment would be done in advance on 18.08.2017.

4.

8.2017.

It is stated that complainant made the payment of Rs.

13,25,117/- on 18.08.2017 in favor of OP1 through cheque and the car was delivered on 23.08.2017.

It is stated that after receiving the car and on the way the complainant and his son in law noticed while driving that the wheel alignment of the car is not balanced after which they checked all the car and got shocked and surprised to see that many parts of the car are highly rusted and this fact was immediately told to OP1 and Ms.

KiranTamta, who assured that they will look into the matter.

5.

It is stated that on 24.08.2017 complainant and his son in law took the car to OP1for resolution of the issue by changing the car.

KiranTamta told that the change of car would take some time and assured that inspection of the car will be done in two three days by company official of OP2 but nobody came for inspection as per assurances and complainant used the car for few days.

It is stated that till 02.09.2017 complainant and his son in law many a time contacted OP1 & 2 but no satisfactory answer was given and kept on delaying.

6.

It is stated that an email was sent to customer care of OP2 then a reply was received on 09.09.2017.

It is stated that the son in law of complainant tried to contact Ms.

KiranTamta who assured that on 11.09.2017 one of the person will come to inspect the car but nobody came.

It is stated that thereafter Ms.

KiranTamta did not take any call and then email was sent on 12.09.2017 then again assurance given on 13.09.2017 through email that some person will surely visit on 22.09.2017 for inspection and telephone number of Ms.

Ruchika was provided.

7.

It is stated that on 19.09.2017 son in law of complainant again received email from OP1 that the inspection of the car is fixed for 25.09.2017 instead of 22.09.2017.

It is stated that one person namely Mr. namely Mr.

Sikander Khan inspected the car and taken photographs most of the parts which are rusted and again OP1 assured that now the problem would be resolved within two days as inspection has been done.

It is stated that after two days again complainant tried to contact OP2 butt nobody taken the phone then son in law again send an email to customer care of OP2.

It is stated that OP2 replied the email wherein it is mentioned that CRM has been directed to take necessary action but after three days again no satisfactory response received from complainant.

It is stated that on 01.10.2017 complainant again contacted customer care of OP2 to inquire the progress and also email reminder was sent but no steps taken by OP2.\ 8.

It is stated that from the first date of purchase the car alignment is out, many parts including doors, silencer of the car are rusted, windshield wipers are out of status and the registration process could not be completed within stipulated time and complainant has to face financial loss and high mental harassment.

It is stated that complainant purchased the car with his whole life saving and taken the loan on high interest but OP1 & 2 cheated and harassed and willfully ignored to resolve the complaint.

It is stated that OP1 & 2 willfully committed unfair trade practice by selling old rusted car and also guilty of deficiency in service.

9.

The complainant is seeking the direction to take back the vehicle in dispute and refund Rs.

13,25,117/- or to replace the vehicle in dispute with brand new car, to pay Rs.

4 lac as compensation for harassment, mental agony and expenses and also pay Rs.

1 lac towards cost of legal proceedings.

10.

OP1 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that complainant doesnott deserve any relief as not approached tthisHon’ble Court with clean hands. ean hands.

It is stated that the true facts are that when the vehicle in question was purchased, the complainant was to arrange the registration number by himself and complainant himself is responsible for delay in registration number.

It is stated that complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the same is without any cause of action.

It is stated that there is no deficiency of service of OP1 and complainant has made out a false and frivolous case agaiinstt OP1 under the figment of imagination.

It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.

On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP1 and reiterated contents of preliminary objections.

The OP1 did not reply para2,3,4,7,9,10 ,11, 17 and 19 for want of knowledge and matter of record.It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12.

Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP1 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint.

13.

OP2 filed WS and taken preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in law as clear abuse of process of law of this Hon’ble Commission.

It is stated that complainant has failed to even make out a prima facie case for deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.

It is stated that the issue raised by complainant pertains to the service and the sale team who are not employees of OP2 and neither work under the instructions and control of OP2.

14.

It is stated that the vehicle in question is one of the leading SUVs in the relevant section and have been performing very well across the country.

It is stated that the issue pointed out by the complainant relate to the regular service related issue.

It is stated that the issue relating to regular service rectify in front of complainant and thereafter a road test was also done to assure the complainant regarding the performance of the vehicle. e vehicle.

It is stated that OP1 is the authorized dealer of OP2 and also authorized to provide after sell service to the customers.

It is stated that the relationship of OP2 & 1 is on principle to principle basis therefore, OP2 is not responsible for any alleged deficiency on the part of OP1.

15.

It is stated that the allegations with regard to defect in the vehicle is baseless and in such a situation for alleged service and sales related issues OP2 can not be made liable.

It is stated that there is no allegations of manufacturing defect and grievances raised against OP1 and OP2 is not aware of allegation of payment of Rs.

5000/- to OP1.

It is stated that as per section 13 (1) (c) of CP Act, 1986 whenever the complainant alleges a defect in the goods which can not be determent without proper analysis and test of the goods, the Hon’ble Consumer Forum has to sent to it appropriate laboratory for testing with a view to find out whether such goods suffer from any defect as alleged and complainant is liable to prove his case and also liable to shoulder the burden for expenses, if any, in the process of adducing expert evidence.

16.

It is stated that complainant has deliberately failed and neglected to take any steps to send his vehicle for requisite inspection to independent agency such as ARAI or Vehicle Research and Development Establishment or any other reputed state/central government agency/institution.

It is stated that complainant has deliberately failed to make any such application to send vehicle for testing as there is no defect in the vehicle whatsoever.

It is stated that as per complaint it is not clear if the alleged deficiency is claimed for services provided by OP1 or vehicle is suffering from manufacturing defect, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP2.

17. t OP2.

17.

It is stated that at the time of delivery of the vehicle as per the standard practice, the OP1 had also provided the full details of the vehicle and was duly inspected by complainant.

It is stated that even before the first service the vehicle in question met with an accident which is clear from entry dated 24.10.2017 that the vehicle had been brought in an accidental condition by the complainant.

It is stated that it is clear mishandling on the part of complainant and concealing this fact.

The copy of vehicle history filed on record.

It is stated that the vehicle has been reported twice for its service in some other dealership of OP2 and not once has the complainant pointed rusting to the service center.

It is stated that the problems as mentioned by complainant are not defect but minor service related issued and same have been cured already.

18.

On merit all the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OP2 and reiterated contents of preliminary objections.

19.

Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP2 and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint.

20.

Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit.

In the affidavit contents of complaint reiterated.

Complainant relied on copy of tax invoice of car Ex.CW1/1 and CW1/2, copy of RC of car Ex.CW1/3, copy of email conversation between complainant and OPs Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/5, copy of photographs of car Ex.CW1/6.

The complainant also filed evidence of another witness Sh.

Manish Kumar who reiterated the contents of complaint and referred to already exhibited documents.

21.

OP1 filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.

S.k.

Goyal, AR.

In the affidavit contents of WS are reiterated.

OP relied on copy of service record of car EX.OPW1/1.

22.

OP2 filed evidence by way of affidavit of SonamKhanna, AR. hanna, AR.

OP relied on copy power of attorney dated 08.02.2023 EX.R1, copy of vehicle history EX.R2.

23.

Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OP1& 2.

24.

We have heardSh.

Manish son in law for complainant and Sh.

PradeepChaudhary proxy for Sh.

Naveen Sharma counsel for OP1 and Sh.

ParvezRehman counsel for OP2.

We have gone through the record.

25.

As per material on record it is admitted case of the parties that complainant and his son in law Mr.

Manish Kumar after receiving the call from Ms.

KiranTamta customer Relationship officer of OP1 on 18.07.2017 visited OP1 showroom and as per assurances and promises agreed to purchase Mahindra SUV 500 and paid Rs.

The complainant as per procedure provided by Ms.

KiranTamta applied for fancy number in Uttar Pradesh on 29.07.2017 but vehicle was not delivered during the stipulated period which is proved on record as same was delivered on 23.08.2017 by that time the validity of fancy number got expired.

The complainant proved on record the correspondence with OP1 & 2 EX.CW1/4 and CW1/5 dated 02.09.2017 and reply dated 09.09.2017 these correspondence established that on the next day of purchase of the vehicle in question complainant pointed out that new car is having rusted parts including doors, silencer and windshield wipers are out of state and also the car alignment was out.

The complainant further established that OP1 & 2 despite several requests took one month to finally inspect the vehicle and to take notice of the issue raised by the complainant when Mr.

Sikander Khan inspected the car and taken the photographs.

The photograph Ex.

CW1/6 clearly proved that several parts of the vehicle in question are rusted although the vehicle in question is brand new even not having the registration number.

The OP1 & 2 failed to rectify the issues raised by complainant continuously just after next of the purchase of the vehicle in question.

26. stion.

26.

The OP2 attempted to divert the real issue by alleging there is no manufacturing defect and complainant has raised the issue relating to service.

The OP2 mentioned about accidental condition as per entry dated 24.10.2017 but complainant raised the issue discussed hereinabove much prior to it.

The complainant nowhere alleges any incident pertaining to accident in October, 2017.

The OP1 attempted to shift all the liability to complainant for getting the fancy number although as per record the OP1 failed to deliver the vehicle within stipulated time for which the fancy number taken by complainant remained valid, admittedly the vehicle was delivered on 23.08.2017.

The correspondence especially through email clearly established that the vehicle in question sold by OP1 manufactured by OP2 since the day of sell was having issue of alignment and some of the parts discovered by complainant were rusted.

The OP1 & 2 failed to rectify the issues and complainant was compelled to use the vehicle in question in such a condition especially when complainant also taken the loan at high interest rate.

27.

We are of considered opinion that OP1 & 2 sold Mahindra SUC 500 to complainant which was having the issue of alignment and many parts including doors, silencer are rusted and windshield wipers are out of state and OP1 did not take steps for expeditious delivery which resulted in expiry of fancy number taken by complainant.

The complainant established deficiency of service against OP1 & 2.

28.

On the basis of above observation and discussion present complaint is allowed.

The vehicle in question has been used by complainant since 23.08.2018 and now we are in 2026 for about 08 years therefore, replacement with a new brand car can not be granted.

The complainant also not reported any major issue with the vehicle in question during the pendency of present complaint. complaint.

However, we are of considered view that complainant faced harassment and mental agony as the issues raised and proved never rectified by OP1 & 2.

29.

30.

SANJAY KUMAR NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDENT MEMBER PR ..................

SANJAY KUMAR PRESIDENT