DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 21^stday of October, 2021

Present   : Sri.Vinay Menon.V President

               : Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                      Date of Filing: 07/12/2017

CC/183/2017

Manikandan

S/o.Pazhaniyappan,

Puthanthara, Kuzhalmannam

Palakkad.                                                                     -                       Complainant

(By Adv. P. Sreeprakash)

                                                                                    Vs

1. Authorized Signatory,

Yamaha Kuzhalmannam,       

              Authorised Yamaha Dealer,

Near PDC Bank, Kuzhalmannam

Palakkad.

      2.   Manager,

India Yamaha Motors (P) Ltd,

2^nd Floor, Orchid Tower,

Edapally Bank Junction

Cochin – 682024                                 -                       Opposite party

            (By Adv.P.B. Harris)

O R D E R

By Sri.Vinay Menon. V,  President

          Brief  facts of the complaint.

1. Grievance of the complainant is that while the first opposite party informed him that the  total price of a Yamaha Fascino Motor Cycle was only Rs.64,919/- (ex-show room price Rs.58,326/-,Registration expense, Rs. 4,666/- and insurance premium Rs.1,927/-)  during September, 2017,   they charged him with Rs. 67,000/- when he agreed to purchase the bike. Furthermore, eventhough he refused financial assistance from any financier, the opposite party availed assistance from HDFC Bank, and got hypothecation marked in the registration certificate. The grievance is two tier – one being over-pricing and the second being creation of false documents and creating Hypothecation liability over the vehicle without the consent of the complainant.
2. The opposite party filed version countering complaint pleadings and substantiated the price levied. They alleged that the complainant had sought for financial assistance at first after remitting Rs.30,000/-, but then paid the balance amount of Rs.37,000/-after 12 days, without financial assistance. In the meantime, paper works had progressed  at the instance of the complainant and HDFC bank was shown as financier. After the complainant paid Rs. 37,000/- the arrangement with bank was cancelled, but the name of bank was shown in the Registration certificate. Eventhough the opposite party informed the complainant that they would rectify this error, he sought to go hard on them. The complainant had not suffered any monetary loss in any manner or the opposite parties had not overpriced the vehicle in any manner. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.         On the pleadings, the following issues arise for consideration:

            1.         Whether the opposite parties had overcharged the complainant?

2.         Whether the opposite parties had forged documents to create hypothecation over the vehicle purchased by the complainant ?

3.         Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

4.         Relief and cost ?

4.         Evidence on the part of the complainant comprise of deposition of PW1 and documents, Exhibits A1 to A3. Documentary evidence on the party of opposite parties comprised of Exhibits B1 to B9.

Issue No. 1

5.         First grievance of the complainant, as revealed from the pleadings   is that the price of the bike, as informed by the opposite party is Rs.64,919/-. But when he went to the opposite party to purchase the same, the price was Rs.67,000/-. Exhibits A1 and A2 are the receipts issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Exhibit A1 is dated 07.09.2017, for Rs.30,000/-. Exhibit A2  dated 19.09.2017 is yet another receipt for Rs. 37,000/- issued by the opposite parties. Exhibit A2 is seen issued 12 days after Exhibit A1. It is seen that the payments were effected by the complainant based on Exhibit B9, which is also dated 07.09.2017. No objection was forthcoming to Exhibit B9 at the time of marking the same as an Exhibit. Hence the complainant had full knowledge that the price of the bike was Rs. 67,000/-. He had put in effort of 12 days to raise Rs. 37,000/-. Had he any grievance  that he was being overcharged, he could have rescinded the deal. He failed to do so.

6.         Further the complainant had not produced any document to show that the price of the bike would only come to Rs. 64,919/-, as he alleged. The complainant has failed to discharge the burden of proof by cogent evidence. The opposite parties had produced Exhibits B1 to B9, of which, Exhibits B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6 and B9 are to substantiate that they had only levied the amounts as claimed by them.

7.         From a perusal of the pleadings and evidence, it can be seen that complaint is an effort at unjust enrichment. Hence issue no. 1 is found against the complainant. The opposite parties had not overcharged the bike.

            Issue No. 2

8.         The second tier of grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties had forged documents to get the vehicle hypothecated with the HDFC Bank. It is the clear case of the opposite party that the complainant initially paid Rs.30,000/-. He wanted the opposite party 1 to arrange a loan for him for Rs.37,000/-. To this end the complainant provided the opposite party with documents. But on 19.09.2017, the complainant came up with the money himself and informed that he did not want financial assistance. In the meantime the paper works in the RTO had progressed and the name of HDFC Bank was entered as financier. Eventhough, the name of the Bank was entered in the registers of the RTO, the complainant did not suffered any losses monetarily in the transactions with the bank. Furthermore, the name of the bank was removed from the documents of the RTO on 08.12.2017.

9.         Ironically, it is from Exhibits A1 and A2, that one can substantiate the claim of the opposite parties. The time difference of 12 days goes far to concrete  the story of the opposite party. Furthermore, Exhibit B8 is the printout of the Registration Details of the bike of the complainant. It shows hypothecation marked  from 13.09.2017 to 08.12.2017, that is for nearly 3 months.  Also the presence of Exhibit B7 basic tax receipt belonging to the property of the complainant solidifies the case of the opposite party. The complainant had not raised any complaint with the opposite party being in possession of the  copy of the basic tax receipt of the property belonging to him. From an overall reading, we find that the pleading of the opposite party is more probable. The complainant also has  no case that he suffered monetarily owing to the mistaken entry.

10.       Even if the name of the bank was entered in the RTO records, we view it only as a bonafide mistake. We are unable to term it as a deficiency in service as contemplated under the Act. Hence, issue no 2 is also found in favour of the opposite parties and against complainant. The opposite parties have not committed any acts to forge  any documents to create a hypothecation without the consent of the complainant, so as to term their conduct a deficiency in service under the Act.

            Issue Nos. 3& 4.

11.       In view of the findings in issues 1 and 2, this complaint is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 21^st day of October, 2021.

                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                               President

Sd/-

Vidya.A

                 Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Original of receipt bearing No.215 dated 7/9/17 for Rs.30,000/-

Ext.A2 –  Original of receipt bearing No.226 dated 19/9/17  for Rs.37,000/-

Ext.A3 -  Original Certificate of Registration for vehicle bearing No.KL-49-J-2877

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Copy  of vehicle data sheet pertaining to vehicle of Manikandan.P

Ext.B2 – Copy of Form TR5 (C). dated 11/12/17

Ext.B3 –  Copy of Two Wheeler Package Policy for Policy No.71070131170350056354

Ext.B4 – Copy of Form TR5(C). for Rs.150/- dated 11/12/17

Ext.B5 –Copy of Yamaha Protection Plus Certificate dated 26/9/17

Ext.B6 – Copy of Tax Invoice bearing No.771 dated 14/9/2017

Ext.B7 –Copy of Basic Tax receipt bearing No.76556 dated 1/3/2017 of Kuzhalmannam VO

Ext.B8 – Copy of Registration details of vehicle registration No.KL-49-J-2877

Ext.B9 – Copy of Price details dated 7/9/17  of Yamaha Fascino bike 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1- Manikandan.P

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Cost : No cost allowed.

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the

         proceedings in accordance with Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission

         procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out after 30 days of

         issuance of the order.