Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/9/2021

Sanjaya Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-M/S. Unique Motor Corp. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. B.K.Shroff

06 Dec 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER CONPLAINT NO- 09/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Sanjaya Kumar Patra,

R/o.- at Quarter No. G/101, Sector-6, Rourkela,

Sundargarh-769002, Present residing at

C/O Pramod Kumar Naik, At/Po:- Dhankouda,

Rugidhi Bandha, Sambalpur-768006.                                                      …………..Complainant

Versus

1.            M/S. Unique Motor Corp., Plot No. 145/934,

Bangala Tola, Panposh, Rourkela,Sundargarh-769004

2.         Chairman ,T.V.S Company Limited, Post Box No.-4,

            Harita,Hosur-635-109,Tamil Nadu,India

3.         Area Manager,TVS Motor Company Limited, 303 3^rd floor,

Creative Plaza, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010

4.         Tata AIG General Insurance Co Limited, 2^nd floor,

Plot No. 304, Holding No.-72, Uditnagar, Rourkela, Sundargarh-769012

5.         Aditya Birla Insurance Brokers Limited. One India Bulls Centre,                            Tower-1, 14^th floor, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Senapati Bapat                                         Marg, Elpinestone Road, Mumbai-400013

6.         Regional Transport Officer, Rourkela, Uditnagar, Sundargarh-769012

 

7.         Commissioner-Cum-Secretary,

Commerce and Transport Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar

8.         Sale tax commissioner (GST Cell)      (EXPUNGED on 07.09.2022)

Rourkela Circle, Uditnagar, Sundargarh-769012                  …………………Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :- Sri. B.K.Shroff, Advocate & Associates.           
2. For the O.P.1                    :- Sri. P.K.Mishra, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P.2&3               :- Sri. S.K.Nayak, Advocate & Associates
4. For the O.P.4 &5             :- Sri. A.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates
5. For the O.P.6 &7             :-Self

 

Date Of Filing :09.02.2021,Date Of Hearing :01.11.2022, Date Of Judgement : 06.12.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complaint is about the deficiency in services, intentional negligence, unfair trade practice, cheating and causing intentional harassment to the Complainant by the OPs for non supply of authenticate bills along with relevant documents against his newly purchased vehicle. The Complainant has purchased a two wheeler motor cycle i.e TVS Radeon-110 ES MAG and paid as per tendered amount of the OP No. 1 mentioned in their quotation No. 476 dtd. 03.10.2020 i.e Rs. 75,307/- vide Money receipt No. 3414 dtd. 3.10.2020 amounting to Rs. 74,300/- as Rs. 1000/- has been deposited vide MR No. 3276 dtd. 27.09.2020 and the OP No. 1 supplied computerized Bill vide invoice No. 623 dtd. 03.10.2020 in the name of the Complainant. On the day of receiving the Insurance policy paper of the said vehicle the Complainant discovered that the OP No. 1 has charged excess amount of Rs. 312/-. Instantly the Complainant lodged his complain before the OP No. 1 but the OP No. 1 did not reply. After several request the office personnel of the OP No. 1 conveyed it has been charged against the processing fees of the OP No. 4 & 5 which is clearly unfair trade practice by the OP No. 1 in the guise of processing fees. On 09.10.2020 the Complainant sent a mail to his insurer i.e TATA AIG Insurance Company (OP NO. 4) requesting to refund of excess amount received by the OP No. 1 for the sake of the OP No. 4. In its reply the OP No. 4 sent a reply mail mentioning that the matter will be short out within seven day. But the matter could not resolve by the OP No. 4 & 5. The OP No. 1 has not supplied the complete details genuine bills/vouchers towards amount received from Complainant on dtd. 3.10.2020 which is violation of provision of C.P Act, 2019.

The OP No. 1 received/charged Rs. 1000/- for the fitting of accessories but no accessories has been assembled in the said vehicles. The said matter has been reported to the OP No. 2 & 3 in their respective mail and over telephone vide complaint No 10106985 dtd. 5.10.2020. But after several telephonic complaints the OP No. 2 & 3 did not resolve the matter at their end and always assured to the Complainant the matter will be resolved within 24 hour. After several sincere complain made by the Complainant the OP No. 1 refunded the excess amount of Rs. 222/- which was charged against assembling of accessories and rest of the amount worth Rs. 778/- is still retained by the OP No.1. The OP No. 1 sold the vehicles on dtd. 3.10.2020 amounting to Rs. 61,542/- (ex Show Room) vides bill no. 623 dtd. 3.10.2020. But the OP No. 1 not deposited all the dues of Road tax as per RTO rule in time for which the Complainant had suffered a lot for getting RC paper in time.  After several request made before OP No. 6 and followed by letter communication dtd. 9.10.20 and the OP No. 1 deposited RTO charges fees to the RTO portal an amounting to Rs. 4290/- dtd. 20.10.2020 vide Receipt/Appl No. OR14 D 20100001455/OR20102042406172 against vehicle No. OD-14-V-8455 in the wrong name of the Complainant one Sanjay Kumar Patra instead of Sanjaya Kumar Patra. On perusal of above receipt, the observation made out that the OP No. 1 has not deposited all the RTO due within time and the sale price is mentioned i.e. Rs. 62,042/- which is totally different to invoice dated 3.10.20 supplied to the Complainant. After several request to the OP No. 1 and interference by the OP No. 6 the OP No. 1 refunded the excess amount charged toward Road Tax head i.e. Rs. 2,328/- with interest Rs. 148/-.

The OP No. 6 issued/generated the Registration certificate of the Complainant in the name Sanjay Kumar Patra instead of Sanajaya Kumar Patra for which the Complainant is being harassed and debarred to establish his right of ownership in his newly purchased vehicle in the eye of law. The OP No. 1,2 & 3 failed to provide proper free service during the tenure of free service as per the norms of Company rules and not rectified the defect pointed out by the Complainant as well as during water servicing. Despite the Complainant deposited extra amount of Rs. 600/- towards Teflon coating polish the Op No. 1 did not apply with ill intention after the repeated request of the Complainant. The OP No. 4, 5 & 6 with an ill intention have not displayed or concealed the price chart in details in their display board to misguide the innocent consumer at large. The OP No. 8 made party to this case to reveal the GST details against bill No. 623 dtd. 3.10.2020 deducted by OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 running his business with the help of all OPs. By means of such unfair trade practice and gains illegal money for which they are liable to give compensation to the Complainant.

2. The OP No. 1 is set exparte. The written version of O.P No. 2 & 3 is that the two wheelers manufactured by the OP are sold “on principal to principal basis” to its various dealers across the country. The dealers are independent parties and not the agents of the OP No. 2 & 3and they act on their own behest and behalf for which the OP holds no liability. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the OP No. 2 & 3. The Complainant purchased the vehicle in dispute from the OP No. 1 wherein all the sale formalities were duly made and executed by the OP No. 1 and the Complainant had paid the amount to the OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 & 3 were not a party to the contract and as such, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP No. 2 & 3 only on the ground alone. The relationship between OP No. 2 & 3 and the OP No. 2 & 3 is on principal-to-principal basis. The dealers purchase the vehicles from the OP No. 2 & 3 on payment of full price and thereafter, the vehicles are sold by the dealers to end customers. All the issues relating to booking, delivery, registration, serving, customer relations, etc. are independently handled by dealers. As an obvious corollary thereto, the OP No. 2 & 3 are not responsible for the acts and omissions of OP No. 1.

The written version of O.P No. 4 is that it is evident from the plain reading of the Complaint petition that no averment relates to the OP No.4 and thus adding of the OP No.4 tantamount to misjoinder and the OP No.4 may be deleted from array of parties. The entire averment and grievance raised by the Complaint relates to discrepancy in the registration and non providing of authentic bills, deficiency in Teflon coating and none of the case related to the OP No.4 whatsoever and adding of the OP No.4 as party is sheer abuse of process of law and wastage of precious time of this Commission. The Complainant has concealed the fact that the Complainant has been duly refunded by the OP No. 1 the excess amount collected by the OP No. 1 of Rs. 3000/- which included an amount of Rs. 2328/- towards Road Tax, Rs. 312/- towards insurance charges and Rs. 222/- towards Accessories charges and interest of Rs. 148/- by OP No. 1 from the efforts made by the OP No.4. The Complainant has acknowledged the receipt of the above amount vide its letter dtd 6.11.2020 addressed by the Complainant to the Regional Transport office, Rourkela. The OP No.4 has not collected any excess money the Complainant which was duly communicated to the Complainant and despite that the Complainant added the OP No.4 as a party. There is no legal mandate or regulation requiring the OP No.4 for displaying price chart and thus no deficiency of service can be attributed on the OP No.4. In case of any query pertaining to the price or the premium amount may be confirmed prior to purchase of the policy on the official website or contact number of the OP No.4, however and thus no deficiency of service can be attributed on the OP No.4. The OP No.4 does not act as an agent to any of the OPs added in the complaint petition and thus no liability for any act or omission of any of the OPs can be fastened to the OP No.4. The Complainant purchased a motor vehicle of the make and model of TVS Radeon 110 ES MAG from the OP No. 1 and the said vehicle was insured for a period of 3.10.2020 to 2.10.2021 from the OP No. 4 which was booked by using the web portal and premium of Rs. 4803 was received though the OP No. 1 and Rs. 50,000/- was collected as consolidated payment of Rs. 50,000/- from the OP No. 1 in respect of several policies issued through the OP No. 1 which included the policy issued to the Complainant and the premium amount of Rs. 4803/- in respect of the policy issued to the Complainant. It has not received from the OP No. 1 any additional amount other the premium amount of Rs. 4803 in respect of the policy issued to the Complainant. The name of the owner of the vehicle in the policy document was based on the name of the owner as specified in the vehicle purchase invoice issued by the OP No. 1. The policy documents were handed over to the insured by the OP No. 1 and the Complainant never raised any issue with respect to any terms and conditions therein the policy any time after the receipt of policy.  So no deficiency is attributed to the OP No.4.

The Written statement of the Op No. 5 is that no averment from the plain relates to the OP No.5 and thus adding of the OP No.5 tantamount to mis-joinder and the OP No.5 may be deleted from array of parties. The entire averment and grievance raised by the Complaint relates to discrepancy in the registration and non providing of authenticate bills, deficiency in Teflon coating and none of the case related to the OP No.4 whatsoever and adding of the OP No.5 as party is sheer abuse of process of law and wastage of precious time of this Commission. Aditya Birla Insurance Broker are ‘Insurance Brokers’ which acts as a facilitator for insured and insurance company. Its main function is to provide information about the insurance policies and risk advisory services to the clients. The OP No. 5 does not act as an agent to any of the OPs added in the complaint petition and thus no liability for any act or omission of any of the OP can be fastened to the OP No. 5. No cause of action whatsoever relates to the OP No. 5 and thus the instant complaint be dismissed for non disclosure of any cause of action with costs in favour of the OP No. 5.

The Written statement/Para-wise report of the OP No. 6 & 7 is that One two wheeler Motor cycle/Scooter purchased by the Complainant from the OP No. 1 and got it Registered on 20.10.2020 bearing Reg. No. OD 14V 8455 at the Dealer’s point. All the vehicles during its purchase are being registered at the Dealer’s point after depositing the requisite Govt. fee as well as cost of the vehicle as fixed by the Manufacturing Company including all Taxes and the OP No. 6 has no deal with any amount from the vehicle purchaser. It is found from the Vahan Database that the aforesaid vehicle bearing Regn. No. OD 14 V 8455 stands Registered in the name of Sanjay Kumar Patra at Dealer’s point. The Complainant after purchase of the vehicle, filed application at the dealer’s point for Registration of vehicle in Form No. 20 in which his name typed out as “Sanjay Kumar Patra” and the Complainant himself signed his name as “Sanjay Kumar Patra”.If the Complainant found some mistake in relevant M.V documents, he should have rectified the defects at the Dealer’s point. Moreover, the Complainant should have also met to the OP No. 6 for considering his grievance and initiating correction of M.V documents. But, he has not done so and unnecessarily blaming to the OP No. 6.

103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant a Consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Is there any deficiency of service/unfair Trade practice on part of O.Ps?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

Issue No. 1 Is the Complainant a consumer of the O.Ps?

The Complainant has purchased a two wheeler motor cycle i.e. TVS Radeon-110 ES MAG  and paid as per tendered amount from the OP No. 1 who is dealer of the OP No.2 & 3. For that vehicle the Complainant purchased an Insurance Policy of OP No. 4 and the OP No. 5 is the broker of the OP No. 4. Thereafter the vehicle was registered in the office of the OP No. 6 which is under the OP No. 7.  Hence the Complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps.

Issue No. 2 Is there any deficiency in service/ unfair Trade practice in part of O.Ps?

The dealer/OP No. 1 is independent party and act on their own behest and behalf. The Complainant purchased the vehicle in dispute from the OP No. 1 wherein all the sale formalities were duly made and executed by the OP No. 1 and the Complainant had paid the amount to the OP No. 1. All the issues relating to booking, delivery, registration, serving, customer relations, etc. are independently handled by dealers. So the deficiency in service and unfair Trade practice found against the OP No.1. The Complainant reported to the OP No. 2 & 3 in their mail and over telephone about the excess charge of Rs. 1000/- for the fitting of accessories but no accessories has been assembled in the said vehicles by the OP No. 1, but the OP No. 2 & 3 did not resolve the matter. So the OP No. 2 & 3 are deficient in their service.. Further it is found from the policy paper that, on two different date of policy paper for same vehicle was shown with different charge. The Complainant conveyed the matter through Mail to the OP No. 4, but he did not take step regarding the same. Hence deficiency in service found against the OP No. 4. The OP No. 1 also took excess amount for all the RTO due and interference by the OP No. 6 the OP No. 1 refunded the excess amount charged toward Road Tax head i.e. Rs. 2,328/- with interest Rs. 148/-. The OP No. 6 issued/generated the Registration certificate of the Complainant in the name Sanjay Kumar Patra instead of Sanajaya Kumar Patra for which the Complainant is being harassed and debarred to establish his right of ownership in his newly purchased vehicle. The Complainant also intimated the matter to the OP No. 6, but no step was taken by the OP No. 6. Hence deficiency in service found against the OP No. 6. In the other hand there is no deficiency in service/ unfair Trade practice in part of other O.Ps found.

Issue No. 3 Whether the Complainant is entitled for getting any relief?

From all the facts of the parties, the Complainant is entitled for getting reliefs from the O.P No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

                             ORDER

The complaint is allowed on contest. The O.P No. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to take steps to issueall the relevant documents in correct form i.e. Registration Certificate, Insurance Policy etc. accordingly and supply the same to the Complainant with free of cost within one month from receipt of the order, refund excess amount of Rs. 778/- which was charged towards accessories with Teflon coating amount of Rs. 600/- to the Complainant, rectify the defect of engine sound and defect pointed raised by the Complainant in the 2^nd and 3^rd free services availed times within one month from the receipt of the order or refund Rs. 75,300/- to the Complainant with 12 % interest from the date of purchase i.e. 03.10.2022. Further the OP No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 are directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- each to the Complainant towards deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant as compensation. Further the OP No. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of the petition to the Complainant and also Further the OP No. 1 is directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- in the consumer welfare fund as the OP No. 1 is cheating general public at large which amounts to unfair trade practice. The entire amount will be deposited as per the direction by the above OPs within 30 days from the date of order, failing which all the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 6^th day of Dec, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.