Haryana

Ambala

CC/136/2023

JATIN KAUSHAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOYAL AUTOMOBILES . - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON.

16 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	136 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	05.04.2023
Date of decision	:	16.07.2024

 

Jatin Kaushal aged 23 years son of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, resident of 39 Nirmal Vihar, District Ambala.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Goyal Automobiles (10138) # G.T. road near Vita Milk Plant Ambala City, through its Manager.
2. Bajaj Auto limited # Akurdi Pune, through its Branch Manager.

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                              Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     None for the complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                  Shri S.R.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.                                                                                                                                                Shri R.K. Vig, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.                

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.45000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of sale of the motorcycle till actual realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony &physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.35,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that on 25.02.2019, the complainant purchased one motor motorcycle CT 100 from OP No.1 vide Invoice No. VSI101381802133 dated 25.02.2019, bearing chassis No. MD2A18AY5JWG22433, Engine No. DUYWJG91383 including Insurance and RC (certificate of registration) on making payment of Rs.45000/-. OP No.1   also gave the insurance policy no. P400 # M6257318 valid for the period from 25.02.2019 to 24.02.2024, on receipt of premium amount of Rs.5580/-. It was agreed between the complainant and OP No.1 that the amount can be paid in some installments. As such, on 25.02.2019 the complainant paid Rs.20000/-; on 18.04.2019 he paid Rs.5000/-; on 17.03.2020 he paid Rs.9000/-; and on 22.09.2020 he paid Rs.4300/-.  The complainant was assured that he will receive RC after a month or two, at his registered permanent address. However, OP No.1 without the consent and notice to the complainant sold BS4 model, which was a year old manufactured model, despite the clear order dated 24.10.2018 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the registration of such vehicle will not be allowed after 31.03.2020. This fact was not brought by the OPs, to the knowledge of the complainant even till 22.09.2020 when he paid last installment of the said motorcycle, as a result of which, the same could not be got registered in view of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. OP No.1 intentionally and dishonestly at the time of sale had not given any temporary number/registration of the vehicle in question to the complainant and also intentionally did not upload the sale transaction on E-Vaahan portal of the Central Government or the portal of the concerned State Government.  Also, though there were free services of the said vehicle promised by OP No.1, yet, it charged Rs.25/- on the first free service vide invoice No. LCI101381900158 dated 08.04.2019 and Rs.100/- on the second free service, vide invoice number LCI101381902794 dated 25.07.2019. OP No.1 straightaway denied the R.C (certificate of registration) stating that it did not upload the sale transaction on the Government portal.   Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 03.02.2023 upon the OPs seeking refund of Rs.45000/- but they refused to do so and on the other hand, vide email dated 15.03.2023 and also through whatsApp message informed that they are ready to exchange the said motorcycle with the another one, but, they did nothing. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP  No.1 appeared and filed written version  wherein it took various objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant never deposited any amount for R.C. with OP No.1; the present complaint is hopelessly time-barred because the vehicle was purchased on 25.02.2019 and the complaint has been filed in the month of April, 2023; the present complaint is also not maintainable because no case is made out in favour of the complainant and against OP No.1, as it was the sole duty of the complainant to get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority within time of 30 days i.e. from 25.02 2019 to 27.03.2019;  the present complaint is also not maintainable to the extent that a reply dated 02.12.2020 was sent to the legal notice dated 23.11.2020 through Registered Post to Mr. Jatin and to his lawyer Mr. Gurmeet Ahluwalia, and more-so-over a public notice dated 22.03.2020, in Danik Bhaskar was also communicated in the newspaper on behalf of OP No.1 about non-registration of the vehicle but the complainant did not take any action in the matter etc. On merits, it has been stated that because the complainant never visited the showroom of OP No.1, hence there is no question of any harassment, deficiency in services or unfair trade practices on the part of OP No.1. The complainant is quite negligent, careless and it is not understandable that as to why he has not turned up for getting the needful done till date, inspite of receipt of the reply dated 02.12.2020 and remained silent for a span of about 30 months. The contents of the legal notice dated 23.11.2020 and that of the present complaint are contradictory. The complainant had given an undertaking dated 25.02.2019 as satisfaction note, in which it is clearly mentioned that both parties are nowhere liable about any type of legal issues. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Upon notice, OP  No.2 appeared and filed written version  wherein it took various objections to the effect that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed in limine for want of cause of action; OP No. 2 has not erred in offering service to the complainant under the settled business practices of Auto industry; as there was no consumer dispute existing, hence this complaint is not tenable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and deserves to be dismissed at the outset; the instant complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law and the complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainants’ case is non-registration of the vehicle in question and as such OP No.2 has no role in the same. It is a matter of record that dealers are not the agent of Bajaj Auto Limited and Bajaj Auto Limited is not responsible for any act and/or omission on the part of the dealers. Bajaj Auto Limited manufactured the vehicles and sells it to its authorized dealers, who further sells the same to the customers who are willing to purchase it from the dealer. OP No. 2 being manufacturer of vehicles has never assured to issue any RC at the time of purchase of any vehicle to the customer. It is the duty of the OP No. 1 who after receiving any charges for the purpose of supply of RC issued from the concerned Registering Authority. It is only OP No. 1, who can clear the stand taken by the complainant in the complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with cost.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure A-1 to A-12 and closed the evidence of the complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Devinder Kumar, Manager of OP No.1–Goyal Auto, Ambala as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1/1 to OP-1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Umesh Bhangale, Authorized Signatory of OP No.2 –Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune as Annexure OP-2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           None put in appearance on behalf of the complainant on the date of arguments, therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating  objections raised in the written version has submitted that a public notice dated 22.03.2020, in ‘Danik Bhaskar’ was also communicated in the newspaper on behalf of OP No.1 about non-registration of the vehicle by the concerned customers but the complainant did not take any action in the matter.  He further submitted that the contents of the legal notice dated 23.11.2020 and that of the complaint are contradictory. The complainant had given an undertaking dated 25.02.2019 as satisfaction note, in which it is clearly mentioned that both the parties are nowhere liable about any type of legal issues. He further submitted that OP No.1 sent an email to the complainant that it is ready to exchange the motorcycle in question with another but of no use.  
8.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 submitted that OP No.2 being manufacturer of the vehicle in question, has no role whatsoever with the vehicle sold by OP No.1 to the complainant as it is working on principal to principal basis with its dealers. He further submitted that no specific allegations have been raised by the complainant against OP No.2 therefore complaint against it is liable to be dismissed. 
9.           First coming to the objection taken by the OP No.1 that this complaint is barred by limitation, it may be stated here that if the period of two years are counted from the email/message dated 27.02.2023, Annexure A-12 sent by OP No.1, whereby it asked the complainant to visit OP No.1 for the opportunity to exchange the motorcycle in question with other one, this complaint filed on 05.04.2023 is well within limitation. Objection taken therefore stands rejected.
10.           Coming to merits of the case, it may be stated here that it has not been disputed by the OPs that manufacturing and selling the motor cycle in question make BS4 model had been barred by the Honourable Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 24.10.2018. It has been specifically stated by the complainant in para no.17 of his complaint that when he served a legal notice dated 02.02.2023, Annexure A-10 to the OPs in the matter, the OPs vide email/message dated 27.02.2023, Annexure A-12 had asked the complainant to visit OP No.1 for the opportunity to exchange the motorcycle in question with other one.  In reply to para no.17 of the complaint, OP No.1 has very honestly admitted to the effect that “But it is correct that e-mail message was written by OP No.1 but of no use”. Thus, this admission on the part of OP No.1 makes it clear that it was, at one point of time ready to exchange the motorcycle in question, after receipt of legal notice dated 02.02.2023 from the complainant. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to go further in details of this case, once OP No.1 had admitted to exchange the motorcycle in question. However, at the same time the complainant has also failed to place on record any cogent evidence to establish that after receipt of email dated 27.02.2023 qua exchange of the said motorcycle, he ever visited OP No.1 for exchange of the motorcycle in question. Yet, this Commission also cannot close the eyes qua the vital fact that the motorcycle in question was purchased by the complainant on 25.02.2019 but it could not be plied by the complainant because of its non registration by the Transport Authorities, for the reasons recorded above and it was only vide email dated 27.02.2023 i.e. after more than 4 years that the OP No.1 agreed to exchange the motorcycle with another one. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that the OP No.1, who sold the motorcycle in question to the complainant, despite the clear order dated 24.10.2018 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that registration of such vehicle will not be allowed after 31.03.2020 and the OP No.2, being the manufacturer, who took no steps to recall the vehicles, after the same stood banned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the manner stated above, both have committed deficiency in service and are thus liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards the said motorcycle because it is of no use, in the absence of its Registration Certificate.          
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present complaint stands allowed and OPs No.1 and 2, jointly and severally are directed to refund/pay the entire amount received from the complainant in respect of the motorcycle in question including the insurance premium and to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses, within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs No.1 and 2 shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of filing of this complaint i.e 05.04.2023, till the date of realization.

                    Complainant is also directed to handover the motorcycle in question to the OPs, on receipt of the awarded amount.

                   Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 16.07.2024.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President