DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.306/2017
Sumit Sandilaya,
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma,
R/o C-56, Lajpat Nagar-II
New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
- Eicher Motors Ltd.,
Registered Office :- 3rd Floor,
Select City Walk Mall, A-3 District Centre,
Saket, Delhi-110017
- Royal Enfield,
Branch Office cum Showroom:-
GR 01, Ground Floor Multiplex Block,
Select City Walk Mall Saket, New Delhi-110017
Also at
Shop no.31-A and 31-B,
Khan Market, New Delhi
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 30.08.2017
Date of Order : 13.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
1. Complainant has requested to pass an award directing Eicher Motor Ltd and Royal Enfield (hereinafter referred to as OP-1 & OP-2 respectively) to make payment of Rs.1,85,000/- towards commuting charges, loss of work, telephone calls, mental agony and litigation charges etc; and to make correction in Registration Certificate and hand over to the Complainant.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The Complainant made the booking for purchase of Royal Enfield Motor Bike Classic 350 Black on 12.02.2017 on payment of booking amount of Rs.5,000/-. The booking was made under the name of Sumit. The same is enclosed as Annexure C-1. The Complainant also submitted copy of PAN Card, Voter ID Card and Aadhaar Card for the purpose of registration. He pointed out to add the second name also as is being reflected in the above documents under the name of Sumit Sandilaya. He made the entire payment of Rs.1,44,710/- vide Cheque No.762403 dated 10.03.2017. Again the same mistake was repeated and invoice was issued in the name of Sumit. The Complainant was assured that the R.C of the said vehicle shall contain the full name i.e Sumit Sandilaya. The copy of the retail invoice is annexed as Annexure –C-4. The vehicle was delivered on 20.03.2017. The Complainant was shocked to see that the R.C of said vehicle was in the first name i.e “Sumit”. He immediately surrendered the R.C. of the bike on 21.04.2017 for correction in the name. The Complainant was assured that correction shall be within 10 to 15 days. Complainant visited Khan Market office of Royal Enfield on 13.05.2017 but no satisfactory reply was received. He Contacted Store Manager many a times but of no avail. He wrote e-mail to Store Manager on 16.05.2017 and same is annexed as Annexure C-6. He again wrote email to Royal Enfield Support on 16.06.2017. He was assured to do the needful within 10 days. He again wrote email on 03.07.2017 stating that to take legal action. Without R.C, he was unable to ride the bike. It was pointed out by the Complainant that OP-2 had deposited the documents alongwith R.C to Transport Department on 21.07.2017 for correction in the name and copy of receipt is enclosed as Annexure C-10. It was alleged that the Complainant had to pay Rs.400/500 per day on commutation. As such, the OPs are squarely responsible for its employees negligence and deficiency in services. Hence, the Complainant.
3. OPs on the other hand, filed written reply inter-alia raising preliminary submissions. The OPs had maintained that the Complainant did not raise any objection on the booking receipt etc. It was pointed out at later stage to add the second name of the Complainant. The OPs further denied that at the time of delivery of the said bike, the Complainant did not point out the mistake. It is also averred by the OPs that the Complainant was falsely alleging that he could not ride the bike in the absence of R.C but it was noted from job-cards of the three free services extended to the Complainant on 29.04.2017, 23.06.2017 & 24.09.2017. The bike had been driven 989 Kms as on 24.09.2017. The copies of Job-Cards annexed as Annexure-C. The OPs vehemently denied the allegations of the Complainant.
4. Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence-in-affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
5. This Commission has gone into entire material placed before us. Due consideration was given to the arguments. As pointed out in the complaint as well W.S of the OPs that there was mistake on the part of employees of OP that the complete name of the Complainant was not mentioned in the R.C of the said bike. It is also noted by the Commission after examination of the booking form & retail invoice. The Booking Form was duly signed by the Complainant but no protest was seen lodged in the said form nor any objection was lodged at the time of issuance of retail invoice on 10.03.2017 and delivery of the vehicle was taken on 20.03.2017. But by this date, the Complainant could not show any protest/complaint for addition of second name in the booking form or retail invoice. It was only after the delivery, the complainant took up the addition of second name in R.C of the bike, As would be seen from the receipt of the Transport Department, GNCT of Delhi. The requisite document alongwith R.C was deposited on 21.07.2017. The OPs contended that the Registration Certificate could not get corrected following the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2017 but no copy of said order was produced. The corrected R.C of the said bike received by the OPs in September, 2017. Accordingly, the Complainant was intimated to obtain the same. The Complainant alleged that he was forced to withdraw the case at the time of handling over the R.C.
6. After having considered these documents, it is vividly clear that Complainant could not point out the mistake in the name initially. But no evidence was adduced to substantiate his case by the Complainant. Apparently, the undue time in correction could have been avoided. The OPs have tried to cover the delay on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but no such order was advanced before this Commission. There seems some delay in submission of the requisite documents alongwith R.C of bike in the Transport Department. As regards to non-use of bike in the absence of R.C, has been proved contrary to the claim of the Complainant. Therefore, after seeing the job-cards, this charge of Complainant is not proved.
7. In nutshell, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there was delay on the part of OPs in submission of documents. Hence, OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- severally and jointly as compensation toward mental agony and other expenses. RC has been handed over by the OP to the Complainant as recorded in order of this Commission dated 02.04.2018. The above amount should be released within 02 months from the receipt of this order failing which the interest @9% p.a shall be levied till its realization.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
