DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.2539 of 2019
Date of institution: 28.11.2019 Date of decision : 12.10.2021
Rakesh Yadav S/o Sh.Gagan R/o House No. 34, Block-E, Colony No. 4, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Suzuki Motorcycle India Private Ltd, Village Kherki Dhaula, Badshahpur, NH-8, Link Road, Gurgaon Haryana,122004 through its Managing Director, Divisional Manager/Manager/Authorised Signatory
2. Bedi Auto Wings LLP, B-25, Industrial Area, Phase-3, Mohali through is Partner/Proprietor, Managing Director/Manager/Authorised Signatory.
3. IDFC First Bank Limited, Registered Office:- KRM Towers, 7th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai, 600031 through its Managing Director/Divisional Manager/Manager/Authorised Signatory.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Shri Narinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Parunjeet Singh, counsel for OP No.1
OP No.2 ex-parte.
Shri Bhawandeep Jindal, counsel for OP No.3
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that the CC is doing a private job and in accordance with his job he wanted to purchase a new Motor Cycle/Bike known as Bike GIXXER SF-GSXFDL8A having chassis No. MB8NGBBKG821509 bearing temporary no. PB-65-AG (T)-1024 from OP No.2 on 11.04.2017 which is manufactured by OP No.1. CC taking the services of OP No.2 purchased the Bike in question manufactured by OP No.1 and paid the entire sale consideration after getting it financed from OP No.3.
The main allegation of the complainant, is that as and when he visited the office of the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh for the registration of his Bike, he was sent back with lame excuses. The complainant also approached OP No.2 and requested OP No.2 to give him correct and proper documents so that he could get his vehicle registered with the registering authority. On 25.07.2019, CC also approached SSP, Chandigarh for No objection Certificate of his vehicle and also approached various other authorities for collecting various documents. Ultimately on 02.08.2019, the file of the complainant was returned by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh with the remarks that registration of this particular vehicle is prohibited and is not permissible. When he enquired from the Registering and Licensing Authority, he came to know that this vehicle falls in the category of Bharat Stage-III which is banned in India, vide orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.04.2017. Surprisingly OP No.3 also financed the banned vehicle manufactured by OP No.1 and sold by OP No.2 despite having knowledge of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos. 1 to 3, the CC has sought refund of Rs.91,440/- the price of the Motorcycle along with interest and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for harassment. Further the CC has demanded Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses. Complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.
2. Notice was issued to effect the service of the OPs on 22.09.2020, but neither the Registered cover nor the ADs were received back served or unserved. Accordingly the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte and the case was adjourned for ex-parte evidence of the complainant vide order dated 23.03.202,1 but on the same day Sh.Parunjeet, Advocate has appeared and filed written version on behalf of OP No.1 and then the case was listed for evidence of the parties and arguments.
3. In reply, OP No.1 has raised a number of preliminary objections but has admitted the sale of the Bike. Rather in these preliminary objections, OP No.1 has put the entire burden on OP No.2, who is authorized dealer of OP No.1. OP No.1 has further declared that the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer was on principle to principle basis and claimed that the manufacturer cannot be held liable for any misrepresentation. OP No.1 has mentioned a number of judgments in its written version and has mainly contested the claim of the CC on the ground that CC has got no cause of action against OP No1. Thus OP No.1 has sought dismissal of complaint against it. Written version of the OP No.1 is signed by someone but name of the person is not mentioned in the written version. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of one Sh. Divakar Jangid, Company Secretary of OP No.1.
4. The CC in support of his complaint submitted his duly attested affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8. On the other hand OP No.1 has submitted in evidence affidavit of Divakar Jangid.
5. We have heard counsels for the parties and have gone through the file.
6. During arguments counsel for OP No.1 and the complainant were present and one Sh. Bhawandeep Jindal, Advocate also argued on behalf of OP No.3. He was allowed to join the proceedings. OP No.2 remained ex-parte.
7. The point in controversy before us is whether the vehicle/bike which was not permissible on the roads in India and had fallen in the category of Bharat Stage-III and that OP No.2 despite knowing this fact, intentionally sold the same to the CC to extract money, and further OP No.1 who is a manufacturer was not supposed to stop its agents from selling these vehicles or withdraw these kinds of vehicles, immediately.
8. The next point for controversy before us is whether OP No.3 which is a bank was also aware that such type of vehicles cannot be permitted to be plied in India on the roads and despite that fact, financed the same just to create its business and extract money from the CC.
9. The CC purchased the vehicle from OP No.2 which is manufactured by OP No.1 and paid the entire consideration to OP No.2 by getting the same financed from OP No.3 which is the bank. It is also an admitted fact that the CC went to the Registration & Licensing Authority, Chandigarh for the registration of his vehicle but despite collecting the various documents by running around at various offices could not get it registered. It is also on the file that the CC was not aware of this fact that the vehicle which was sold by OP No.2 to the CC was not a permissible vehicle for the roads in India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had banned registration of such type of vehicles as the vehicles had fallen in the category of Bharat Stage-III. CC had been requesting the OPs time and again and had adopted various methods for refund of his amount but the request of this man always fell on the deaf ears.
10. It is writ large on the file that the vehicle was purchased by the CC on 11.04.2017 from OP No.2, who was not supposed to sell the same to anyone since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had strictly restrained/prohibited the selling of these vehicles and their registration as these vehicles had fallen in the category of Bharat Stage-III.
11. It is also proved on the file that the CC paid an amount of Rs. 91,440/- the price of the vehicle to OP No.2. We feel that CC is successful in proving deficiency in service as well as malpractice on the part of OP No.2 who made fool of the complainant by taking advantage of his innocence and had sold the vehicle which was not permitted in law.
12. We feel that OP No.1 is equally liable for the nefarious activities of OP No.2. We also feel that it was incumbent upon OP No.1 to immediately call back or withdraw all the vehicles which were lying in various agencies throughout India, as and when it came to know about the ban on the sale and registration of these vehicles. OP No.1 cannot escape its liability by providing us with an agreement with OP No.2 We feel, that deficiency in service and malpractice is equally proved against OP No.1 also.
13. As far as OP No.3 is concerned , OP No.3 has chosen not to file any written version against the allegations of the CC for reasons best known to it only. The allegation of the CC is very specific on OP No.3, also that it is very much within the knowledge of OP No.3 that this specific vehicle was not permissible on the roads and the registration of the same had been banned as it had fallen in the category of Bharat Stage-III. In such circumstances they should not have financed the vehicle and claimed interest on it. We feel that deficiency in service against OP No.3 is proved on the file by the complainant.
14. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against all the OPs and order that OP No.2 will refund Rs. 91,440/-, the price of the motorcycle along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receiving the amount from the CC and will take back the motorcycle. We further order that all the OPs jointly and severally will pay a consolidated amount of compensation to this poor CC to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further ordered that the all the OPs will comply with this order within 30 days from date of receipt of free certified copy of this order. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
October 12, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
