BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Tuesday, 17th May 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 98/ 2015
Darsi Pushpa Kumar, S/o D. Yanadaiah,
aged about 34 years, Hindu, Software Engineer,
Resident of D.No. 3-35, Sarojini Street, Piler,
Chittoor District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Managing Partner, Haroon Motors,
Authorized Dealer, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Almaspet,
Kadapa city – 516 001.
2. The Managing Director, bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi,
Pune – 411 035, India. …..Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 09-5-2016 in the presence of Sri M. Venkataramana, Advocate for complainant and Sri Ajayakumar Veena, Advocate for O.P.1 and Sri K. Vijaya Krishna, Advocate for O.P.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the motor cycle with new one by noting correct chassis and Engine numbers, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows. Opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of Bajaj Auto and O.P.1 is the authorized dealer of him at Kadapa. The complainant who is working as Software Engineer purchased Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle manufactured by O.P.2 from O.P.1 on 30-3-2013 for an amount of Rs. 82,103/- which includes life tax of Rs. 6,270/-, registration charges 6,220/- and also insurance premium of Rs. 1,423/-. Financial assistance was provided by Sri Saibaba Auto Finance, Sidhout road, Badvel. The vehicle was delivered by O.P.1 to the complainant. The vehicle was insured with IFFCO-TOKIO General insurance Co. Ltd., The complainant had taken the vehicle for registration but on due verification the registration authority found wrong mentioning of chasis number in invoice and T.R/sale certificates dt. 30-3-2013 issued by O.P.1. As per invoice, T.R and Sale certificates the chasis No. is MD2A11CZODCK91762. But as per physical verification of the vehicle it is found as MD2A11CZ3DCK9156, likewise as per invoice engine No. is DHZCDK84135. But as per T.R and sale certificates and physical verification of the vehicle engine No. is DHZCDK84291. Since the mistake was crept in mentioning of chasis number in T.R and sale certificates the registration authority refused for registration of the vehicle and advised the complainant to bring T.R and sale certificate with correct particulars and unless the correct particulars are produced registration of vehicle is not possible. He admitted several to get vehicle registered proved futile. The matter is taken to the opposite party but no steps were taken to resolve the issue. On 15-7-2014 the registration authority issued registration rejection report that the opposite parties has given written representation to the registration authority, admitting their mistake mentioning chasis and engine numbers and requested the register of the vehicle but the registration authority did not considered the same as wrong mentioning of chasis and engine numbers in invoice, T.R and sale certificates and not rectified the same. The complainant suffered a lot as the vehicle could not be registered due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1. He paid fine number of times during police checking and underwent mental agony and the vehicle was taken away by the police for a day or two. He was vexed with annoyance due to non registration of vehicle due to wrong mention of chasis and engine numbers and kept vehicle ideal and attended office by going in the bus. On 8-11-2015 the complainant got issued legal notice to O.P.1 to replace the vehicle with new one by noting correct chasis and engine numbers and other particulars of vehicle. But did not give any reply. Hence, both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service caused to him. Therefore, this complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed separate counters.
4. O.P. 1 filed counter denying all the allegations regarding deficiency in service liability to replace the vehicle etc., It is further contended the complainant has purchased the vehicle from Sri Sai Krishna sales and services, Badvel, who is the sub-dealer of O.P.1 and sub-dealer has delivered the vehicle to the complainant by issuing receipt. Thus the O.P.1 has not delivered the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant moved the vehicle for registration to RTA Piler of Chittoor district. After rejection of vehicle registration, after knowing the same from the financier this O.P.1 has also sent a letter to RTA, Piler, Chittoor District by furnishing correct particulars of Chasis and engine numbers and requested to entertain the vehicle for registration. But the complainant has not moved the vehicle for registration in spite of addressing letters to concerning RTA by O.P.1. Generally sometimes the numbers of chasis or engine are noted wrongly but after furnishing correct particulars by the dealer to RTA Authority can entertain the vehicle registration. There are no manufacturer defects in the vehicle. The sub-dealer is necessary party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this O.P. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Opposite party No. 2 filed counter denying the allegations as pleaded by the complainant regarding deficiency in service on the part of him and called upon the complainant to prove all of them. Further contended that there is mistake the cause of non registration of vehicle is basically between complainant and O.P1, as O.P.2 is manufacturer and has no role to play in this regard. O.P.1 is authorized dealer of O.P2 and O.P.1 sold this vehicle to the complainant. There may be typing and wrong mistake on the part of O.P.1 while mentioning the chasis and engine numbers. So O.P.2 has no role to play as he is only manufacturer and no manufacturing defects to the vehicle. The O.P2 is nothing to do with registration of the vehicle and always it is the duty of selling dealer to register the vehicle. Therefore, no cause of action against O.P.2 and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the opposite parties as prayed?
- To what relief?
7. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A10 and on behalf of O.P.1 Exs. B1 and B2 documents are marked. On behalf of the O.P.2 no documents are marked.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and carefully perused the material on record.
9. Point No. 1.There is no dispute in this case that the complainant had purchased Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle from O.P.1 sub-dealer under Ex. A1 invoice on 30-3-2013 and after purchase the complainant had taken the vehicle for registration and produced the vehicle before registering authority. But the registering authority refused for rejection of the vehicle as the engine and chasis numbers mentioned in invoice, T.R and sale certificates issued by O.P.1 are not tallying with chasis and engine numbers physically found on the motorcycle produced for registration. The complainant brought the same to the notice of financier so also to the O.P.1 and O.P.1 even addressed a letter to the registering authority admitting that there was wrong mention of chasis and engine numbers and requested for registration of the vehicle. But the registering authority not registered the same and insisted for invoice T.R certificate and sale certificate with correct particulars. But there after the O.P1 has not taken any steps for issuing rectified invoice T.R and Sale certificates to the complainant.
10. Learned counsel for O.P.1 contended that he has not sold the vehicle to the complainant on 30-3-2013 but it was sold by his sub-dealer and he issued sale and T.R certificates and invoice. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on his part.
11. Learned counsel for complainant contended that Ex. A1 shows vehicle was purchased from O.P1 and even if the vehicle was delivered at Badvel he is the sub-dealer of O.P.1 only. Therefore, the O.P1 has to see that the vehicle particulars are to be mentioned correctly in the invoice, T.R and sale certificates.
12. There is considerable force in the contention of complainant. In the counter filed by O.P1 it is admitted that his sub-dealer at Badvel sold the vehicle and delivered the same to the complainant. In such case the acts of sub-dealer of O.P binds him. In para – 4 of the counter the O.P1 admitted that he addressed a letter to RTA, Piler, Chittoor District by furnishing correct particulars of chasis number and requested for registration of the vehicle. If such is the case O.P.1 has full knowledge of the wrong particulars mentioned in T.R, Sale certificates and invoice of the vehicle sold to the complainant. But he did not try to issue invoice, T.R and sale certificates with correct particulars for registration of the vehicle sold to the complainant either by him or by his agent sub-dealer. Therefore, by issuing invoice, T.R and Sale certificates mentioning wrong chasis and engine numbers and not rectified the same by issuing fresh invoice with correct particulars of T.R and sale certificates we hold there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1, who is the authorized dealer of O.P.2 for sale of motorcycles manufactured by O.P.2.
13. Since, there is no allegation against O.P.2 that there is any manufacturing defects occurred to the vehicle and there is no involvement of O.P.2 for wrong mentioning of chasis, engine numbers in invoice, T.R and sale certificates, there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.2 and complaint against O.P.2 is liable to be dismissed. In view of above discussions we hold there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 and no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.2. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered.
13. Point No. 2. Though, the complainant prayed to direct the opposite parties to replace the motor cycle with new one by mentioning correct chasis and engine numbers, but at the time of arguments learned counsel for complainant conceded if invoice, T.R and sale certificates are issued to the complainant with correct particulars by O.P.1 the same would be sufficient to register the motor cycle and such direction may be given to the O.P.1 apart from awarding compensation for mental agony and costs.
14. Since, there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle it is not possible to direct the opposite parties to replace the motor cycle as prayed by the complainant. However, as submitted by the complainant during arguments his request for issuing new invoice, T.R and sale certificates with correct particulars of the vehicle sold to him by O.P.1 may be considered. In view of the above circumstances we hold O.P.1 is liable to issue invoice, T.R and sale certificate with correct chasis and engine numbers to the motorcycle sold to complainant for registration of the vehicle without any objection by registering authority. Accordingly, point 2 is answered in favour of the complainant.
15. Point No. 3. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party No. 1 to issue fresh invoice, T.R. and sale certificates with correct particulars of chassis and engine numbers to the motorcycle purchased by complainant, within one month from today on production of motor cycle by complainant before opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 shall also pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the compliant to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 12% p.a. till realization. The complaint against O.P.2 is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 17th May 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Copy of invoice dt. 30-3-2013.
Ex. A2 Copy of T.R certificate dt. 30-3-2013.
Ex. A3 Copy of tax receipt dt. 30-3-2013.
Ex. A4 Copy of sale certificate dt. 30-3-2013.
Ex. A5 Copy of insurance dt. 3-4-2013 vide policy No. 207ZDB7.
Ex. A6 Copy of registration rejection report dt. 15-7-2014.
Ex. A7 Copy of request letter from M/s Sree sai baba auto finance.
Ex. A8 Copy of representation from O.P.1 to the Regional Transport Autroity, Chittoor District.
Ex. A9 Office copy of legal notice dt. 8-11-2015.
Ex. A10 Postal acknowledgement.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the O.P.1.
Ex. B1 Office copy of the letter addressed to the RTA Proddatur by O.P.1
Ex. B2 Registration copy of the vehicle bearing No. Ap 04 AX : 8882 down load from internet.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the O.P.2 NIL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri M. Venkataramana, Advocate for complainant
- Sri Ajaykumar Veena, Advocate for O.P.1
- Sri K. Vijaya Krishna, Advocate for O.P.2.
B.V.P.
