Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/128

Balkar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fateh Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Lalit Gupta

20 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No.  128 of 03.12.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :     20.03.2018

 

Balkar Singh, aged about 29 years, son of Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of Village Thablan, PO Wazidpur, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Fateh Motors, Sugar Mill Road, Opposite Mill Entry Gate, Morinda,      Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar (Through its Managing         Director/Manager)

2. TVS Motor Company, Registered Office, Jayalakshmi Estaes, V    Floor,          29 (Old No 8) Haddows Road, Chennai, Madras, Tamilnadu

3. Indusland Bank, Corporate Office, 8^th floor, Tower 1, One Indiabulls       Centre, 841, SB Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013

4. District Transport Officer Cum SDM, District Fatehgarh Sahib,     Punjab  

                                                                         ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Sh. H.S. Kang, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1 

              Sh. Anil Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2

              Sh. Ankush Sharma, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.3

              None for O.P. No.4

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Balkar Singh, aged about 29 years, son of Sh. Joginder Singh,     resident of Village Thablan, PO Wazidpur, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib through his counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party No.1 to correct the engine number and chasis number and also give direction to OP No.3 to issue fresh No Objection Certificate after the corrections made by the O.P. No.4; to pay Rs.50,000/- as mentally, physically and financially harassment; to pay Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation; any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deems fit be also granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.    

 2.   Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one TVS MO Sports Motor Cycle for a sum of Rs.54,740/- (includes the Ex. show room price of the motor cycle + Registration Charges + Insurance+ extended warranty charges etc.) from OP No.1 and O.P. No.1 had issued a delivery order dated 5.8.2015 regarding the said sale to the complainant. The O.P. No.1was received Rs.15,000/- in cash as advance payment and the remaining amount was financed by the complainant from OP No.3. He had also cleared the finance amount and regarding the same O.P. No.3 had already issued NOC to him. OP No.3 did not mention the correct chasis number on the NOC. At the time of preparation of Registration Certificate and other documents of motor cycle in question, the O.P. No.1 had wrongly and negligently entered/mentioned wrong chassis number and engine number as MD625MF51E3L20706 whereas the original chasis number was MD625MF57E3N12860 and engine number DF5LE1091742 instead of DF5LE1108330. Due to the said negligent act of O.P. No.1, complainant faced so many problems. Previously complainant used to get/purchase the insurance cover for motor cycle in question through OP No.1 but when he tried to get/purchase the insurance cover for motor cycle in question then the said fact came to his knowledge about wrong chassis number and engine number and due to the said reason the insurance company refused to issue/sell insurance policy/cover note to him regarding motor cycle in question. The complainant had requested to OP No.1 numbers of time to get the said errors corrected in the Registration Certificate and other documents but OP No.1 did not bother to listen to his genuine request. Hence, this complaint.    

  3.  On notice, O.P.  No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering O.P.; that the complainant by totally misstating the facts has filed the present complaint against the answering O.P.; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1; that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is also barred by limitation; that the present dispute requires sufficient evidence and trial and the same is not possible in summary trial before this Forum and the dispute can be decided by the Civil Court only. On merits, it was stated that motor cycle in question was purchased by the complainant from O.P. No.1 and the bill of the same was issued. The complainant was supposed to check the motor cycle in question properly at the time of delivery. If the correct chasis number of the motor cycle in question was not mentioned in the bill it seems that there was some typographical mistake and the complainant was supposed to get it rectified at the earliest and he had not done so and now he has unnecessarily dragged the O.P. No.1 in this present complaint. The motor cycle in question was purchased by the complainant from the O.P. No.1 and complainant was supposed to take action in the matter at the earliest and he was also supposed to check the same properly at the time of deliver.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.    On notice, the O.P. No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed the written reply taking preliminary objections; that neither the O.P. No.2 had committed any error or inadvertent mistake while preparing the R.C. nor had got any connection with the invoice letter issued by the O.P. No.2 and registration certificate issued by OP No.4 in favour of complainant; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint against the O.P. No.2; that the complaint is not within the time; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was stated that O.P. No.2 has no role in preparing or handling over of such documents to the complainant. There is no dispute between the complainant and O.P. No.2. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.    On notice, the O.P. No.3 appeared through counsel and filed the written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is not consumer of O.P. No.3 especially with respect to dispute being raised as the wrong bill as alleged and issuance of wrong registration certificate is related to the O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 4 only. O.P. No.3 is in no way connected with the issuance of the registration certificate.; that there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. No.3. On merits, it was stated that O.P. had financing a financed facility to the complainant for the purchase of two wheeler. The complainant had approached the O.P. No.3 for the advance of the finance facility for purchase of two wheeler. The complainant being interested to purchase vehicle, the O.P. No.3 i.e. bank has facilitated by advancing a finance facility. Any transaction done between the complainant and other O.ps. is not related to the O.P. No.3. The NOC was issued to the complainant with the registration number as provided by the complainant. The loan account stands closed and there is nothing on the part of O.P. No.3 after issuance of NOC to the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint against the O.P. No.3.

6.    On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 TO Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered sworn affidavit of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, Manager OP No.1 Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence. The authorized signatory of O.P. No.2 has tendered his duly sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.OP2/B and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for O.P. No.3 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Manv Puri, authorized signatory of O.P. No.3 Ex.OP3 along with documents Ex.OP3/A, OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/3 and closed the evidence.  

7.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.    Complainant counsel Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar argued that complainant Balkar Singh, purchased motor cycle against a sum of Rs.54,740/- on 5.8.2015 from OP No.1. At the time of issuance of the sale certificate/invoice letter and delivery order mentioned incorrect chassis number 20706 as it was 12860. Similarly, committed error while mentioning engine number 91742 instead of correct number 108330. Due to the mistake to the O.P. No.1 as well as mistake of OP Nos. 1 to 4, the complainant has to suffer which amounts to deficiency in service. The learned counsel also argued that when in the year 2018-19 when the complainant got issued the policy against the said motor cycle then he came to know qua the incorrect engine number/chassis number. Then he issued notice dated 25.9.2018 but OP No.1 did not bother. Hence, the complainant had to file the complaint. The learned counsel also referred that the fault is of the OP No.1 and then the fault is committed by OP No.4 also by issuing incorrect Registration Certificate. OP No.2 is the manufacturer and OP No.1 is authorized sale point. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint against the O.Ps with costs.

9.    Sh. Anil Sharma, counsel for OP No.2, who is the manufacturer argued that the complaint is only maintainable if the consumer approaches the forum within two years from the date of sale certificate. In this case, the complainant purchased motor cycle on 5.8.2015 and limitation expires on 4.8.2017. Hopelessly, the present complaint is time barred. Learned counsel then argued that after going through the entire complaint complainant nowhere the complainant has made alleged any allegations with regard to the deficiency against the O.P. No.2, so, the complaint against the OP No.2 is baseless and deserves to be dismissed with costs.

10.  Sh. H.S. Kang, learned counsel for OP NO.1 argued that admittedly the motor cycle was sold to the complainant on 5.8.2015 against the invoice and then the sale certificate along with delivery letter were issued. Firstly the complaint is time barred on the ground that limitation expires in the month of August 2017 but the present complaint was filed in the month of December 2018. Learned counsel then argued that it is the duty of the complainant who has to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. If deficiency remains un-proved then complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. Learned counsel apparent to the forum through the document adduced by both the parties and prayed that the delivery letter Ex.C5 placed on file speaks the correct chassis number 12860 and engine number 108330. This is the document itself placed on file by the complainant. Learned counsel then referred Ex.C2 i.e. the photocopy of the policy for the year 2018-19 since on 9.6.2018 it speaks the correct engine number and chassis number. Learned counsel then referred to photocopy of temporary number photocopy Ex.C3. Lastly learned counsel by referring the pleadings as well as documentary evidence argued that deficiency on the part of O.Ps. remains un-proved due to the lack of evidence. Sufficient time opportunity was with the complainant to summon the record from the DTO or from the Fateh Motors, if the complainant was satisfied that the error is committed while issuing the invoice or the sale certificate. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint.

11.  Before the conclusion of the complaint, the forum is to appreciate whether it is a consumer dispute and the complaint is maintainable or not. Complainant pleaded the complaint is within limitation relying upon the notice dated 29.6.2018 but this plea is strongly opposed by the counsel for O.Ps. No.1 & 2. Complainant had purchased the motor cycle on 5.8.2015 and the limitation to an end on 4.8.2017. If the forum goes with the calculation of the period w.e.f. the date of sale then hopelessly the complaint is time barred. So the arguments of the complainant counsel that knowledge is w.e.f. the notice is without merit. Sufficient opportunity was with the complainant to place on file the copy of the invoice, sale certificate and then the photocopy of the four policies issued since the date of purchase but for the best reason known to the complainant was not filed within time. Though, it is a consumer dispute but the complaint is time barred.

12.  Coming to the real fact of the controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. To prove the deficiency it is a primary duty of the complainant to prove whatsoever is placed on the file. Admittedly, the sale is dated 5.8.2015 and OP No.1 issued sale certificate, invoice letter and then delivery certificate. Copy of the delivery certificate is Ex.C5 which gives the correct engine number/chassis number, relying upon this document O.Ps. cannot be held responsible qua the deficiency. Beside this complainant has not placed on file any document relating to the sale certificate/invoice. No doubt the complainant has placed on file some documents which almost goes against the point of limitation as well as qua the correct chassis number/engine number but only one document is photocopy of the Registration Certificate Ex.C5 which speaks engine number/chassis number as mentioned by the complainant. To strengthen the complaint as well as arguments there is nothing on the file relying upon which this forum could conclude that the Registration Certificate had incorporated incorrect engine number/chassis number because of the deficiency of O.Ps. No.1 & 2 or O.P. No.4. So because of lack of evidence, it is not possible to held deficiency on the part of O.Ps. Rather the best piece of evidence i.e. the sale certificate/invoice are not on the file. At the same time, O.P. No.4 in its letter No.29/T dated 11.1.2019 has requested this forum that if any error is committed by mentioning a wrong engine number/chassis number then OP No.4 is ready to correct it.

13.  After appreciating the totality of documents, complainant has failed in proving firstly that the complaint is within limitation and secondly failed on the point of deficiency in service. So the complaint is without merit.

14.  But in the interest of justice, to protect the innocent consumer and appreciating the letter issued by the O.P. No.4, O.P. No.4 in rectifying the engine number and chassis number on the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. is directed to look into the entire matter of RC No.PB-23S-7048 in the light of original engine number/chassis number and then to appreciate the invoice/sale certificate. At the same time, OP No.1 is directed to itself pursue the claim of complainant with OP No.4. After verifying the record of sale certificate/invoice if any error then issued the fresh letter. At the same time, OP No.4 is directed to conclude this function within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.    

14.   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                          (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.20.03.2019                                  PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                            (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                      MEMBER