FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT           

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY,   PRESIDENT

The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents are that the complainant  purchased a vehicle being Model “EXTREME CRDFI BS -IV”, being Engine No. G2408515K02458 and chasis No. MCLSACIWPPK009329 manufactured by OP 5 International Cars & Motors Ltd. OP 1 Boby Automobiles exclusively for the purpose of her livelihood. The price of the vehicle is Rs. 11,84,672/- and said vehicle was purchased through the financial assistance of OP 7 United Bank of India. OP 1 being the authorized dealer of OP 5 did not handover certificate of “in built speed governor meter” which is essential for certificate of fitness of any commercial vehicle. Complainant further averred that all commercial vehicle must have inbuilt speed governor meter at the time of certificate of fitness. On account of non providing the said certificate, complainant did not able to obtain certificate of fitness of the vehicle from the MV Department, Government of West Bengal and also failed to ply the vehicle on road. As  a result, the vehicle is lying on ideal condition since 04.07.2018 and he failed to pay EMIs of term loan to the  OP 7/United Bank of India. OPs 5 & 6 have stopped to manufacture the vehicle being Model  “EXTREME BS -IV” since 2014 and in spite of that the OPs 1 to 4 sold the vehicle to the complainant suppressing the material facts . Despite several request the OPs did not hand over the said certificate for which the complainant is suffering a huge financial loss.

Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, complainant filed the present complaint before this commission.

The OPs1 to 4 have filed their separate WV, in which, material facts have been denied. The answering OPs took plea that the complaint is barred by limitation as such the complaint is not maintainable. Complainant purchased the vehicle being Model “EXTREME BS -IV” from OP 1 /Distributor on 31.03.2016. Answering OPs follows the rules & regulations as laid down in Central Vehicle Rules, 1989 and MV Act, 1988. Procedures and guidelines regarding SLD has been communicated by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India vide No. RT-11017/13/2005-MVL dated 16.06.2016 and such guidelines strictly followed with effect from 31.10.2016. Complainant had purchased the subject vehicle prior to Notification No. RT-11017/13/2005-MVL dated 16.06.2016. Thus, the claim of the complainant is not tenable. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the answering OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The OPs 5 & 6 have also contested the case by filing written version, in which they have denied the material facts. The answering OPs took plea that the complaint is barred by limitation. The liability of the answering OPs is limited to repair any defect of the vehicle within warranty period and there is no allegation of defect of vehicle during warranty period. The answering OPs being the manufacturer never deals with any customers directly and their dealers purchase vehicles from the answering OPs on payment basis and thereafter sell it to their customers against invoice. The vehicle was purchased on 31.03.2016 and since then complainant used it for commercial purpose. The vehicle manufactured by the answering OPs was not a transport or commercial vehicle. Therefore, there is no need to issue SLD certificate. The subject vehicle never came within the preview of the notification of the Government of West Bengal. The complaint is not maintainable and it liable to be dismissed.

Despite service of notice, OP 7 UBI did not turn up to contest the case by filling WV. Thus, the case runs ex-parte against the OP 7.

We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, their evidence and documents on record.

Having perused the materials available on record and after appreciating the evidence lead by the parties it is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the subject vehicle from the OP 1 on 31.03.2016 after availing term loan of Rs. 9,47,738/- from the OP 7/UBI and subject vehicle was manufactured by OPs 5 & 6. The vehicle registered in the name of the complainant. OPs 5 & 6 being the manufacturer follows the Central Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India vide Notification No. RT-11017/13/2005 MVL dated 16.06.2016 communicated the guidelines for fitment of Speed Limitation Device (SLD). It is not in dispute that the Government of West Bengal vide Notification No. 1939(50)-WT/3M-69/2007 (Pt. 1) dated 22.05.2017 issued guidelines regarding Retro fitment of Speed Limiting Device (SLD) in existing transport vehicle. Since the date of purchase, complainant has been plying the subject vehicle and no such certificate of SLD was demanded from the manufacturer. The gross weight of the subject vehicle is 2510 Kgs and its seating capacity is also less than required by the said notification. The subject vehicle is not covered under the above notification as it was manufactured prior to such notification. The notification dated 22.05.2017 is for the vehicle having seating capacity for more than 08 persons and vehicle weight is 3500 Kgs plus. Registration certificate of the subject vehicle dated 11.07.2016 itself proved that the weight of the vehicle is 2510 Kgs. In our opinion, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the subject vehicle was manufactured prior to the notification dated 22.05.2017.

In the present case, the OPs have alleged that the complaint is barred by limitation. Fact remains that complainant purchased the subject vehicle on 31.03.2016 from OP 1 and first time on 29.09.2018 she requested the OP 1 Bobby Auto Mobiles to obtain authenticate certificate of inbuilt speed governor meter from the OP 5 in respect of the subject vehicle. Complainant runs the subject vehicle for more than 02 years without any dispute from the date of purchase. Cause of action of the present complaint arose on 31.03.2016 and complaint is filed on 22.01.2019 which beyond the period of two years. Thus, the complaint is not maintainable and barred by limitation. Complaint is not filed in consonance with the provisions under section 69(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which for filing a complaint provides for two years time from the date on which the cause of action arose. There is no application for condonation of delay on the part of the complainant.

In view of our above discussion and based on proper appreciation of evidence and documents available on record, we find no merit of the case and the Consumer Case is hereby dismissed on contest against the Ops 1 to 6 and also dismissed ex-parte against the OP 7. No order as to costs.

Copy of this order be provided to the parties as per rules. Judgment be uploaded on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period dve to heavy pendency of cases and also due to pandemic of Covid-19.

File be consigned to the record room.