JUDGEMENT

                                            Date  - 11.06.2014

                             (By Shri.Vinayak Raoji Londhe, President,)

                        Complainant Dr.Mahadeo Ashruba Korsale  filed the present complaint U/sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act for grant of compensation on account of deficiency in the service by the respondent.

                        Following are the brief facts giving rise to the decision of complaint.  Complainant is Doctor by profession.  Complainant is serving in the rural hospital at Keg as a medical Officer.  Complainant  intended to purchase  Swift VDI Car.  Complainant visited the showroom of respondent  no.2 for purchase of the vehicle.  Respondent no.2 gave quotation of Swift VDI to the complainant. Respondent no.2 directed the complainant to deposit Rs.7,24,070/- towards full and final price of Swift desire Car.  Complainant deposited the entire amount to the respondent no.2 by cash and finance RTGS.   Complainant deposited entire amount up to 28.-05-2013.  Respondent no. 2 issued the final balance sheet.  The respondent no.2  gave copy of insurance premium receipt by way of policy no.30001/MI-01295203/00/000 to the complainant.  Rs.25,450/- were paid to ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company.  After completion of entire formality respondent no.2 gave possession of Swift Desire VDI,  white color to the complainant on 28.05.2013.  The vehicle is bearing chassis no.450712 and engine no.392691.  Respondent no.2 told complainant to approach the agent namely  Mr.Hatte at RTO office Ambejogai. Complainant approach the RTO agent RTO Ambejogai  inspected the vehicle and gave cash receipt.  Complainant was assured that, tax receipt, registration number, RC book, will be given within 8 days.

                   It is the contention of complainant that, complainant approached respondent no.2 and made enquiry about the registration of the vehicle.  Respondent no.2 gave registration no. MH-44-G-824.  Complainant requested respondent no.2 about tax receipt, RC book and other documents.  The respondent no.2 informed that, enquiry be made with the agent.  Complainant made enquiry with RTO office Ambejogai and came to know that the number and number plate given by respondent no.2 was forged.  The said number was of another vehicle.  Complainant informed this fact the respondent no.2,  complainant approached respondent no.2 and requested to make payment to the RTO office.  The respondent no.2 gave falls reply.  The respondent no.2 has accepted an amount of Rs.74,344/- from complainant towards the payment of capital CRTM + H charges.   Respondent no.2 has not deposited the said amount in the RTO office.  The vehicle of complainant is not registered in the RTO office. Respondent no.2 has wrongfully retained the said amount.  As the vehicle is not registered, complainant is unable to use the said vehicle.  Respondent no.2 fail to provide service to the complainant. There is deficiency in the service.  Complainant is paying loan installment regularly.  Complainant issued legal notice to the respondent, but the respondent have not considered the request.  Complainant has suffered mental pain and agony. Complainant has suffered loss towards traveling expenses.  Complainant prayed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, complainant further prayed that, respondent be directed to issue documents of registration along with receipt of payment of taxes in RTO office  along with RC book, and other necessary documents.

                   The respondent no.1 appeared and filed Written Version below Exh.11.  It is the contention of respondent no.1 that, complainant is not consumer. Complainant did not enter into any contract for sale and hire any service for consideration with opponent no.1.  Complainant did not pay any amount to opponent no.1  It is submitted that, there is no cause of action against opponent no.1  Opponent no.1 is manufacturer of Maruti Suzuki.  Opponent no.1 does not sell vehicle directly to the individual customer.  The dealer sell the vehicle to their customer under their own invoice.  Opponent no.1 is not liable  for any act of omission or commission of the dealer.  Opponent no.1 has not committed any deficiency in the service.   It is submitted that, the entire sell transaction has taken place between the complainant and Opponent no.2.  It is submitted that, there is no privities of contract between complainant and Opponent no.1.   It is prayed that, complaint against respondent no.1 be dismissed.

                   The respondent no.2 appeared and filed Written Version below Exh.20.  Respondent no.2 admitted that, complainant purchased the vehicle named in the complaint.  Respondent no.2 submitted that, after purchased of the said vehicle complainant himself came and informed the registration number, and got   prepare  number plate in the showroom by respondent no.2.  Respondent no.2 submitted that, their RTO agent Ashok Hatte  informed that all papers are handed over to the complainant.  Complainant took  number of his choice and therefore, there are  delay in registration of vehicle.   Respondent no.2 handed over entire RTO charges to their agent.   There was delay in registration of vehicle.  It was because complainant intending to opt  number of his choice.   Respondent admitted that, he received Rs.74,344/- towards RTO charges.  It is submitted that, there is fault of agent Ashok Hatte.  The said agent threaten to commit  suicide.  There was delay in registration of complainant vehicle.  The said agent has cheated respondent no.2 and  other customer.  The respondent no.2 has informed the complainant all facts, there is no deficiency in the service.  Complainant is enjoying  the vehicle and thus, respondent no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

                   The complainant filed his own affidavit at Exh.14. The affidavit of one Bhimrao Manikrao Lamture  is filed at Exh.16.  Complainant produced documents with list Exh.4.   The respondent no.2 filed affidavit with list Exh.21. We have heard the argument of learned counsel Shri.H.P.Jadhav  Advocate for complainant.  The argument  of Advocate Shri.Kakde  for respondent no.2.  The respondent no.1 submitted case law with Written Version.  On considering the documents & affidavits, following points arise for determination. We have recorded  finding against each point for the reasons stated below.

                                POINTS                                                    ANSWER

1. Whether complainant proved that, the 

Respondent no.2 caused deficiency in the

Service as alleged ?                                                 Yes.

2.             Whether complainant is entitled for the

                  Compensation prayed ?                                       Yes.

1.        What order ?                                                    As per final order.

REASONS

POINT NO. 1 & 2 :-

                   The learned Advocate Shri.Jadhav appearing for the complainant argued that, the complainant has duly tendered entire amount of the vehicle purchased and took the possession on 28.5.2013.  Complainant has deposited the registration charges to the respondent no.2.  It is the duty of the respondent no.2 to get the vehicle register and hand over all necessary documents.  The respondent failed to register the vehicle.  It is urged that, respondent no.2 is blaming agent Shri.Hatte, who is failed to deposit the amount and get the vehicle register.  The complainant has unnecessary suffered Mental Agony.  The respondent no.2 did not hand over the documents. Complainant was unable to use the vehicle and thus, it is urged that, complainant is entitled for direction and the documents prayed. 

                        On behalf of the respondent no.2 the learned Advocate Shri.Kakade submitted that complainant want to have the number of his choice.  Due to that, there was delay in registration.   The learned Advocate further urged that, the RTO agent Shri.Hatte though received money has not taken steps.  There is delay in registration but same was not due to the negligence of respondent no.2.  Respondent no.2 is taking steps, the agent Shri. Hatte was attempted to come suicide.  Police was investigating  the case.  Police has seized all documents of RTO authority.  Due to that, there was delay in collecting the documents.  There is no fault on the part of respondent no.2.

                   We have considered the entire documents and the evidence.  It is admitted that, complainant has purchased Swift Desire VDI model.  Complainant has deposited the entire price with respondent no.2 and took possession of the vehicle.  It is admitted that, the vehicle was not registered within a reasonable time.  It also reveals that, the agent of respondent no.2 by name Ashok Hatte failed to take further steps in registration of vehicle.

                   On perusal of the evidence, it is found that, the vehicle was not registered in time.  Due to that, the complainant who was Doctor could not use the vehicle.  It also appears that, the complainant has meet respondent no.2 from time to time and inform about the registration of vehicle.  Complainant has purchased the vehicle from respondent no.2 manufactured  by respondent no.1.  It is the duty of the respondent no.2 to provide service  contemplated under sale and purchase agreement.   Though, the possession of the vehicle was handed over.  It was not registered with RTO promptly.  Complainant was required to visit respondent no.2 time to time by taking leave.  For that purpose complainant was required to spend money. Having considered the entire circumstances  we are of the opinion that, complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards Mental harassment and Physical agony and the expenses incurred by him.  It is seen from the record that, the vehicle is not registered though the entire amount is paid.  The documents are not handed over to the complainant by respondent no.2. In our opinion, this is a fit case to issue direction to the respondent to give all documents of the vehicle to the complainant including  registration certificate, receipt of payment of tax within  one month from this order.

                   The complainant has made respondent no.1 as a party.  Respondent no.1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle.  There is no deficiency in the  service on the part of respondent no.1. The fault is that, respondent no.2 dealer, respondent no.1 is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent no.2 is liable to pay the compensation.

                          Accordingly, we answered point no.1 and 2 in affirmative and passed following order.

                ORDER

1. The complaint is   allowed.
2. The respondent no.2 is hereby order to give all documents of the vehicle to the complainant within one month from this order.
3. The respondent no.2 is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the complainant  within one month from this order, failing which complainant is entitled for interest @ Rs.10% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 03.03.2014 till realization.
4. The respondent no.2 is ordered to pay Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation and bear his own.
5. The Complainant be returned the complaint set as per section 20 (3) Consumer Protection Act,.1986.

Shri.Ravindra Rathodkar    Smt.Manjusha Chitalange        Shri.Vinayak Londhe

               Member                     Member                            President

                   District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Beed.