DATE OF FILING : 8.11.2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of  October,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.308/2016

Between

Complainant       :   Johny, S/o. Joseph,

Chelappurath House,    

Mammattikkanam P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv:  Fenil Jose)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1.  Afsal K.A.,

      Proprietor, Auto Tech,

      M.M. Industries Junction,

      Minipady, N.H. 47, 

      Adimali – 685 561.

  2. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons   

                Pvt. Ltd.,

      Opp. Nehru Stadium, Kaloor,

      Kochi – 682 017.

      (By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

  3. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

      Jetway Building, Appollo Bunder,

      Mumbai – 400 039.

      (By Advs:  Saji Mathew, Lissy M.M.,

     Denu Joseph & Neethu Reghukumar )

4. The Manager,

     IndusInd Bank Ltd.,

     Consumer Finance Division,

     Adimali Branch, Adimali.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant is that,

          Complainant booked a Mahindra Alpha pick up with 1st opposite party on 22.9.2016, by paying an amount of Rs.49,500/-.  Balance on road price of the vehicle was Rs.1,63,000/-.  This amount was arranged through a vehicle finance 

        (cont....2)

-  2  -

with 4th opposite party agreed to repay it with 36 instalments at the rate of Rs.6730/- per month.  On the basis of that, 1st opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 26.9.2016.  At the time of delivery of the vehicle, 1st opposite party stated that the original records of the vehicle are with 2nd opposite party and it took 7 days time for completing the registration procedure of the vehicle.  Complainant is a taxi driver and he purchased this vehicle for his livelihood.  His liability to the finance is also met with the income from the vehicle.  But till the date of filing this petition, opposite party has not took any effort to register the vehicle.  So the complainant is not in a position to ply the vehicle.  At the time of delivery of the vehicle, 1st opposite party issued invoice of the vehicle of the 2nd opposite party and thereafter 1st opposite party issued a copy of vehicle data sheet on 29.10.2016 dated 27.10.2016, showing that the vehicle is temporarily registered.  Since the vehicle was not registered permanently, complainant has not use it as a taxi and due to that he suffered a lot both mentally and financially.  Complainant further contended that eventhough the vehicle was kept idle, he had to pay the EMI of the vehicle to 4th opposite party.  Hence alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties, the complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.30000/- as compensation and further direct them to repay the amount  which was remitted by the complainant as EMI, along with damages and cost.

          Upon notice, opposite parties 2 and 3 entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  Notices issued to 1st opposite party was returned unserved on the reason that returned to ‘sender’,  abolished.  From the endorsement of postal department, it is seen that, the matter is intimated to the 1st opposite party.  After giving sufficient chance to appear before the Forum, 1st opposite party set exparte.  

In their reply version, 2nd opposite party contended that they are not aware of the payments and other transactions between the complainant and 1st opposite party.  It is admitted that 2nd opposite party sold the vehicle to the complainant on 26.9.2016.  On getting payment, issued temporary permit on 26.10.2016   It  took one month’s delay to issue the temporary permit as the       (cont....3)

-  3  -

form 22, which is to be attached to the owner’s manual , was found missing.  The matter was brought to the notice of 3rd opposite party, the manufacturer.  The manufacturer is to re-issue the Form 22 and for getting the form 22, it took one month’s time.  The delay in issuing the Form 22 was happened accidentally and the matte was intimated to the complainant also.  The entire allegation in the complaint is leveled against the shortcoming of services on the part of the 1st opposite party.  Hence the complaint  against the 2nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.  There is no unusual delay in registering the  vehicle,  except  the delay caused due to the loss of Form 22.

          In their reply version, 3rd opposite party contended that the opposite party is having no transaction with the complainant.  The  transaction between 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are on principal to principal basis.  Further contended that the sale of the vehicle to the end, customer is in the exclusive domain of the authorised dealers holding motor vehicle trade licence under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under.  This opposite party is not at all involved directly in sale transaction to the customers, no payments are accepted by them,  from any purchaser,  since    there is no direct sale of the vehicle by the manufacturer.  Further contended that every vehicle sold by the 3rd opposite party accompanies form 22 certificates, initial certificate of compliance with pollution standards, safety standards of components and road worthiness.  The said certificate was also there while  handing over the vehicle to the dealer.  The dealer is not an agent of the manufacturer and it is the duty of the dealer to hand over all the documents to the customers along with the vehicle.  Hence this opposite party is not liable for deficiency in service if any, on the part of the 1st opposite party.  Moreover, no definite allegation is raised against 3rd opposite party.           

          Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked.  Ext.P1 is the cash receipts.  Ext.P2 is the vehicle price calculation.  Ext.P3 is the copy of retail invoice dated 26.9.2016.  Ext.P4 is the copy of vehicle data sheet.  Ext.P5 is the receipt showing remittance of finance instalments.  Ext.P6 is the copy of RC Book.

(cont....4)

- 4  -

          From the defence side, manager of 3rd opposite party was examined as DW1.  Copy of vehicle owner’s manual was marked as Ext.R1.  

          Heard both sides.

          The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

          The POINT :- We have  considered the arguments of both the learned counsels and have examined the evidence on records.  From the records, it is evident that the vehicle was booked with 1st opposite party on 22.9.2016, and it is delivered on 26.9.2016.  But as per the evidence, 1st opposite party issued vehicle data sheet only on 29.10.2016, that is after more than one month of the date of  delivery of the vehicle.  That means the vehicle was kept idle for more than one month due to the non-completion of registration process.  The reason pointed out by the 2nd opposite  is that it happened because of the missing of Form 22.  At the same time, they are not liable for the delay in registering the vehicle.

          On going through the averments in the complaint as well as the reply version and the deposition of the witness, the Forum is of a considered view that, the complainant purchased the   vehicle for earning his livelihood and it is admitted that the vehicle was kept idle for a considerable period due to the delay and latches happened on the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties alone.  The justification of the 2nd opposite party in delay of registration cannot be a valid point and hence it cannot be admissible.  Being a sub dealer and dealer of 3rd opposite party, both 1st and 2nd opposite parties are liable for this short comings.  

          Hence the act of  1st and 2nd opposite parties in not performing their duties in time is a gross deficiency in their service extended to the customers and they are bound to compensate the complainant adequately.  Eventhough the complainant stated the financial loss incurred to him due to the irresponsible act of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, no substantiating evidence is produced.

 

       (cont....5)

- 5  -

          Hence on the basis of the above discussion, the complaint allowed in part.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost to the complainant jointly, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation shall carry  12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realization.

          Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2018

                                                                                         

                        Sd/-

     SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

     SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -   Johny.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Sreevid Sreedharan.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -   cash receipts.  

Ext.P2         -  vehicle price calculation.  

Ext.P3         -  copy of retail invoice dated 26.9.2016.  

Ext.P4         -  copy of vehicle data sheet.  

Ext.P5         -  receipt showing remittance of finance instalments.  

Ext.P6         -  copy of RC Book.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1          - Copy of vehicle owner’s manual.