Date of Filing      : 18.07.2018

                                                                                                                        Date of Disposal: 15.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                       .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                 ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com.                                                                           ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.26/2018

THIS FRIDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2022

 

Mr.Tamilselvan,

S/o.Balasubramaniyan,

No.64,F3, Sai Vandhanam Homes,

Banu Nagar, Pudur,

3rd Avenue, Ambattur,

Chennai -600 053.                                                                               ……Complainant.

                                                                             //Vs//

1.M/s.KLN Automobiles Privte Limited,

    Rep. by Managing Director/Authorised Signatory,

    Authorised Dealer for Bajaj Auto Limited,

    No.T 98, 3rd Avenue,

    Anna Nagr West, Chennai -600 040.

 

2.M/s.Bajaj Auto Limited,

    Rep. by Managing Director,

    2/A, 2nd Floor, Bharani Business Centre,

    Dr.Bhanumathi Ramkrishna Road,

    Saligramam, Chennai -600 093.                                     ..........Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                      :   Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1st opposite party                                            :   Mr.L.Thanigaivel, Advocate. 

Counsel for the 2nd opposite party                  : exparte

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 01.07.2022 in the presence of Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mr.L.Thanigaivel, Advocate counsel for the 1st opposite party  and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in selling a defective vehicle along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to replace the bike with a new one of same model, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony caused to the complainant due to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of this proceedings. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It is submitted that the complainant had purchased a Bajaj PULSAR NS 200 BS IV for a total amount of Rs.1,03,459/- which was delivered to the complainant on 12.01.2018.  When the complainant approached the opposite party for free service it was refused on the ground that the chassis number of the vehicle was not registered. The complainant found that the 1st opposite party had delivered the vehicle with wrong chassis number MD2A36FY6HCJ75286 as the chassis number found in form 23 was MD2A36FY6HCJ75268.  Therefore the complainant immediately approached the 1st opposite party to raise the issue but the 1st opposite party did not response properly.  The complainant sent continuous reminders about the same to the 1st opposite party but the 1st opposite party responded only on the subject relating to free service and collection of RC Book.  The RC book was also issued to the complainant with wrong chassis number at the time of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant.  It is found that the real owner of the vehicle which chassis number as mentioned in Form 23 of the complainant herein is one Mr. Joshua Antony Darius and free service was also rendered to him.  In the month of May 2018 the 1st opposite party insisted the complainant to exchange the vehicle with that said Mr. Joshua Antony Darius in which the complainant was not interested as the vehicle with that person had been used for more than 7,000 kms whereas the complainant had used only for 2000 kms.  The complainant not interested to exchange the vehicle filed a complaint with the 2nd opposite party but the 2nd opposite party did not respond to the complaint.  Thus the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs;

To replace the bike with a new one with same model;

2. To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony caused to the complainant due to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party;

3. To pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of this proceedings.

Defence of the 1st opposite party:

The 1st opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that this complaint itself is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  It is submitted by them that at the time of delivery they insisted the complainant to check the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle and also to cross check them with the documents handed over to him.  It is further submitted that the complainant informing about the change in chassis number this opposite party requested the complainant to handover the vehicle enabling them to do the needful i.e., either effecting changes in the respective R.C book and other statutory documents or interchanging the vehicle with proper service back up.  But the complainant did not respond to the request of the opposite party.  Thus the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and sought for the dismissal of the complaint. 

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked and also oral arguments adduced.  On the side of 1stopposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were marked and also they did not adduce oral arguments inspite sufficient opportunities, hence written arguments filed on their side was treated as oral arguments for disposing the complaint on merits.  The 2nd opposite party did not appear before this Commission hence he was set ex-parte on 13.12.2018.

Point for consideration: 

Whether the complainant’s allegation that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in delivering the vehicle with a wrong chassis number and failed to rectify the issue and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point;

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations;

The Tax Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party was marked as Ex.A1 in which the chesses number was mentioned as JLYCHJ35532/ MD2A36FY6HCJ75268. 

The Insurance Policy taken for the vehicle  was marked as Ex.A2;

The form 23/Certificate of Registration for the vehicle was marked as Ex.A3;

The letter dated 08.05.2018 issued by the opposite party to the complainant requesting to bring the vehicle for interchange was marked as Ex.A4;

The email communication sent by the complainant to the Customer Care service of the 1st opposite party demanding for a new vehicle stating that he has no interest in the change of vehicle was marked as Ex.A5;

The email communication dated 14.05.2018 sent by the complainant to the opposite party was marked as Ex.A6;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 23.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;

The reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant was marked as Ex.A8;

Heard the oral arguments made by the complainant and written arguments filed by both the parties.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently argued and the crux of the argument is that the 1st opposite party had delivered a vehicle with different chassis number i.e., one purchased and registered in the name of the complainant.  Further she argued that when contacted the 1st opposite party did not respond but after some time offered to exchange the vehicle which had run more than 7000 kms whereas the complainant had used his vehicle only for 2000 kms.  In such circumstances the complainant refused for the same and wanted a new vehicle to be replaced.

The crux of the written arguments made by the opposite party is that on complaint received from the complainant with regard to the chassis number they try to rectify it by offering it to exchange with the vehicle to whom the particular vehicle was given but the complainant refused for the same and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant we could see that in Ex.A1 is the Tax invoice, in Ex.A2 is the insurance for the vehicle and in Ex.A3 RC book of the complainant the chassis number is MD2A36FY6HCJ75268 but the vehicle delivered to the complainant is with a different chassis number MD2A36FY6HCJ75286.  Admittedly the vehicle purchased and registered in the name of the complainant is entirely different one which is delivered to the complainant.  These aspects were not denied by the opposite party.  But it is the version of the opposite party that though they insisted the complainant to check the chassis number and engine number at the time of delivery the complainant failed to do so and also it is their submission that they were ready and willing to interchange the vehicle with the correct chassis number.

The arguments advanced by the opposite party that it is the fault of complainant in not checking for the correct chassis number and other particulars at the time of delivery could not be accepted by this Commission for the reason that it is the duty of the opposite party to deliver the exact vehicle registered and also to issue the vehicle registration in proper manner and hence the opposite party cannot easily lay down the fault on the complainant.   The complainant cannot be held at fault for the wrong delivery of the vehicle.  In such circumstances having failed in delivering the vehicle without the correct chassis number to the complainant and without providing proper remedy but insisting the complainant to exchange a vehicle which had run more than 7,000 kms in the place of new vehicle the opposite parties had committed clear deficiency in service and we hold opposite parties liable. 

As views have held that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service, the complainant should be provided with a proper relief. The vehicle delivered to him should be replaced with a vehicle would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances.  We also order Rs.25,000/-  towards compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable 

a)to replace the Bajaj PULSAR NS 200 BS IV with a new vehicle of same model within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

 b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15th day of July 2022.

 

      Sd-                                                   Sd-                                                                 Sd-

MEMBER-II                                     MEMBER I                                                 PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 31.12.2017 Tax Invoice issued by the 1st opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A2 31.12.2017 Insurance Policy. Xerox

Ex.A3 11.01.2018 RC. Book. Xerox

Ex.A4 08.05.2018 Letter issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A5 11.05.2018 Complaint made by complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A6 14.05.2018 Email sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A7 23.05.2018 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A8 01.06.2018 Reply sent by the 1st opposite party. Xerox

 

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties;

 

 

Nil

 

 

     Sd-                                                              Sd-                                                  Sd-

MEMBER-II                                               MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT