Haryana

Ambala

CC/294/2019

Gulshan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Dealer Yamaha Motor Cycle Company - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Lakhanpal

10 Mar 2021

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint case No.         :  294 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   16.09.2019.

                                                          Date of decision              :   10.03.2021.

Gulshan Kumar son of Shri Puran Chand, at present permanent r/o village Lottan, (Near Sharda Mata Mandir), Tehsil-Naraingarh, District Ambala-Haryana.

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

1. Authorized Dealer Yamaha Motor Cycle Company, Surya Autos, Chandigarh-Nahan Road, Naraingarh, District Ambala-Haryana, through Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Jagir Singh, and resident of Ward No.11, Raipur Viran, Opposite Power House Colony, Naraingarh, District Ambala-Haryana.
2. Yamaha Motors (P) Ltd., A-3, Industrial Area, Noida, Dadri Road, Surajpur, Gautam Budh Nagar-UP-201306

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Deepak Lakhanpal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP No.1 already ex parte vide order dated 29.10.2019.

Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.        

 

ORDER:     SMT NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To direct the OPs to handover the RC of the Motor Cycle in question to the complainant without any delay.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.  

                   OR

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is earning his livelihood by doing a private job. On 30.10.2016, he had purchased a Motor Cycle Yamaha Saluto 125 CC from the OP No.1 at Naraingarh, Ambala vide Invoice No.684 having Engine No.E3PIE0062628 and Chassis No.MEIRE1223G0032317. He got financed the said motorcycle through Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. He had already paid all the instalments timely to the financer. As per Government instructions and provisions, he had paid a sum of Rs.8800/- to the OP No.1, during the month of October 2017, for preparation of RC of the above said Motor Cycle. This amount was paid to the OP No.1 alongwith late fees for preparation of the RC of the Motor Cycle. OP No.1, assured him that the RC will be delivered to him at his address within one month from the date of application. He visited the office/agency of OP No.1 firstly during the month of December 2017 and requested them that the RC of the Motor Cycle has not yet received by him. The OP No.1 advised him that the RC will be delivered shortly. He believed the OP No.1 and RC of the Motor Cycle were not received by the complainant till the end of December 2017. Then, again he visited the agency of OP No.1 at Naraingarh, but its officials delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. He continuously visited the OP No.1, during the year of 2018, but RC was not delivered to him nor OP No.1 gave any clear/satisfactory reply to the complainant. The above said agency of OP No.1 at Naraingarh has been closed during the month of February 2019. He visited the house of the OP No.1 and requested to hand over the RC, he paid no heed to his request and till date he has not received the     RC of the said vehicle. This way, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 before this Commission, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.10.2019.

                   Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections regarding concealment & suppression of material facts, not approached this Commission with clean hands etc. On merits, it is stated that as per the record maintained and available with the answering OP, the complainant purchased “Yamaha Saluto” Scooter (hereinafter referred to as “Scooter”) from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 30.10.2016. The said Scooter was sold to the complainant after giving all information with regard to the services and additional services provided by the dealer i.e. OP No.1 independently. The complainant was duly informed that the answering OP does not provide services with regard to registration, insurance of vehicle and dealer has been providing the said service independently. The answering OP do not sell its scooters to the individuals, but to its authorized dealers with whom the agreement has been entered into. The said agreement stipulates the relationship between the two on principal to principal basis. In other words the OP cannot be burdened with or held liable for any representation/s or action/s or act/s or omission/s, if any, on the part of its dealers or any other third party. The answering OP provides after sale service of the Scooter to the purchasers from the date of the purchase till the date of warranty i.e. for a period of two years or 30,000 kilometers of its operation, whichever is earlier, from the date of sale to the original purchaser only. As per the terms of the said warranty, the same is extended only to the extent of certain parts that are founded to have a manufacturing defect and not for the complete Scooter. The answering OP undertakes to repair and replace, free of costs, the parts that are found to have manufacturing defect within the period of warranty and the answering OP duly discharges its responsibility in this regard. Further, no liability lies on the OP for claim on those parts of the Scooter that have been subjected to mishandling or negligent treatment or accidental damages by the user. The answering OP does not provide any warranty on tyres/wheel, battery, spark, plug, helmet, chain etc. and their respective manufacturers are liable for any defect. As per the terms of warranty the answering OP is only liable to replace or repair the defective part(s). Furthermore, the issue related to registration certificate and insurance of the Scooter(s) are solely handled by the Dealers only. A bare perusal of the complaint alongwith the documents annexed alongwith the complaint, would show that the OP No.1 had already provided a Temporary Registration Certificate to the complainant (HR-99-2J(T)8644) in due discharge of its responsibility, however the said material fact has been concealed by the complaint. It is the responsibility of the complainant to approach the RTO with relevant documents and apply for permanent registration within 30 days from receipt of temporary RC. As such answering OP cannot be said to be deficient in providing services to the complainant and the complaint filed against it may be dismissed, with costs.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavits Shri Nikhil Gour son of Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma available at A-3, Surajpur Industrial Area, Dadri Road, Surajpur, Noida, presently at New Delhi as Annexure OP2/A and OP2/B respectively alongwith documents as Annexure OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.2.

4.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP No.2 and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 In the present case allegation levelled by the complainant is to the effect that Shri Rajesh Kumar authorized signatory of Surya Autos, which is the authorized dealer of Yamaha Motorcycle Pvt. Ltd., was responsible for getting the RC from the Department concerned as he had paid an amount of Rs.8800/- along with late fees for preparation of RC. To controvert this fact, it was required by the authorized signatory to come present before this Commission. Since, he preferred not to appear before this Commission, despite service as such adverse inference can be drawn against him that he is running away from the promise made by him to assist the complainant in getting RC of the vehicle in question from the Department concerned. From the perusal of annexure C4 issued by State Transport Department, Naraingarh Govt. of Haryana, it is evident that it bears a stamp of Surya Autos. Meaning thereby, complainant had paid Rs.8730/- as fee to the concerned authority through authorized representative of Surya Autos i.e. OP No.1, for issuance of RC of the vehicle in question. Considering all the facts and circumstances referred to above we are of the opinion that necessary directions to the Authorized signatory of OP No.1 needs to be given to assist the complainant in getting the RC of the vehicle in question from the Department concerned. He is also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered to the complainant. So far as the complaint filed against the Yamaha Motors Pvt. Ltd i.e. manufacturer, same is liable to be dismissed because neither any specific allegation has been levelled by the complainant against it nor it has been proved.

6.                In view of the aforesaid discussion we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it in the following manner:-

1. To assist the complainant in getting the RC from the Department concerned.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigations expenses. 

 

                   The above said amount shall be paid by the OP No.1 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on:10.03.2021.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                          Member