Date of filing : 02-12-2010
Date of order : 21-06-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.258/2010
Dated this, the 21st day of June 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Sham Prasad.K. } Complainant
S/o.Venkataramana Bhat,
Kabekkodu House, Po.Movvar,
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(Adv.Vittala.M.Kasaragod).
1. The General Managter, HAR AUTO Pvt.Ltd, } Opposite parties
Har Avenue, Kannothumchal, Chovva.Po.
Kannur.
2. The Chief General Manager,
Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd, Palam,
Gurgoan Road, Gurgoan, Haryana.122015.
(Advs. V.Santharam & A.N.Ashokumar, Kasaragod)
3. The Manager, Har Auto Pvt. Ltd,
Nullipady, Kasaragod.Po. Kasaragod.Dt.
(Ops 1 & 3 Adv. Preman Mavila, Kannur)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Bereft of unnecessaries the case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 delivered him a Maruthi Ritz LD vehicle on 2-8-2010. But it’s temporary registration was expired on 28-07-2010. As a result he was constrained to pay a fine of `2000/- when the RTO checked the vehicle. According to complainant though opposite party No.1 collected the road tax, insurance premium and registration charges they failed to register the vehicle. Hence he himself got it registered by meeting all the expenses. Further he also constrained to get the separate insurance policy paying a premium `13,435/-. Moreover opposite parties failed to give him the necessary car accessories and tool kit as promised. Hence the complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed separate version. Opposite party No.1 filed memo stating that they are adopting the version of opposite party No.3. According to opposite party No.3 the manufacturer of the vehicle, what is transpired between opposite parties 1 & 3 and the complainant is not within their knowledge and there is no privity of contract between opposite party No.2 and complainant and they are not responsible to issue any documents to complainant.
3. According to opposite party No.3 in addition to the price of the vehicle `13435/- was collected towards insurance premium and a policy of insurance was obtained in the name of complainant. A sum of `2600/- was collected towards temporary registration and handling charges for which an official receipt has been given to the complainant. The total amount of 469027/- collected from the complainant which included the insurance premium and handling charges. There were no promises or incentives offered to the complainant. The permanent registration of the vehicle is the option of the customer to be done by them independently or with the guidance of the opposite party. In this case no service charge was collected towards the permanent registration of the vehicle by opposite parties 1 & 3. The complainant has approached opposite party No.3 through one Ramesh Rai who was a temporary sales executive of opposite party No.3 whose whereabouts are not known. A criminal complaint has been filed against him by opposite party No.3 and if any promises were given by the said Ramesh Rai behind the back of opposite party No.1 & 3 it is null void.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and Exts A1 to A13 marked on his side. Exts B1 to B7 marked on the side of opposite parties 1 & 3. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
5. Ext.A1 is the copy of the E-mail dated 9-8-2010 sent by complainant to opposite party No.1. In Ext.A1 the complainant specifically requests for the permanent registration of the vehicle delivered by them and also for the discount `20000/- offered by them at the time of sale. Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice dt.10-08-2010 issued at the instruction of the complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of tax receipt showing the payment `2856/- Ext.A3(a) is the acknowledgement of receipt of money for `2000/- issued from RTO. Ext.A4 is the copy of receipt of `2000/- towards the payment of COMP fee U/s.192 of MV Act. Ext.A5 is proforma invoice is dated 29-06-2010 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant as per that complainant has been charged with comprehensive insurance premium `13435/- Road Tax `28660/- incidental charges `2600/-. Ext. A6 is the copy of delivery note dated 22-7-2010 issued by opposite parties to complainant. Ext.A7 is the certificate of Insurance of Royal Sundaram to the vehicle bearing Trade Certificate KL-13/TC3/02 for the period from 25-06-2009 to 24-06-2010. Ext.A8 is the copy of trade certificate pertaining to the vehicle bearing Reg.No. KL-13/TC/3/02. Ext.A9 is the copy of lawyer notice and Exts. A10 & A11 are the acknowledgements. Ext.A12 is the order booking form. In Ext.A12 also insurance Premium, Road Tax and Accessories has been shown. Ext.A13 is the First Information Sheet.
6. Exts A5 and A12 proves that in addition to the purchase price of the vehicle complainant paid insurance premium, road tax, incidental charges etc to the opposite party No.1.
7. Opposite parties 1& 3 produced Exts B1 to B6. Exts B1 is the copy of the ledger account pertaining to the sale of vehicle to the complainant. Ext.B2 is the copy of Retail Invoice form. Ext.B3 is the copy of branch receipt voucher. Exts, B4, B5 & B6 are also the copies of Branch Receipt vouchers.
8. There is no satisfactory explanation forth coming from the opposite parties 1 & 3 for their failure to obtain permanent Registration number to the vehicle of the complainant and also for the non payment of road tax even after the receipt of said amounts from the complainant. For the non-supply of car accessories and tool kit also no explanation is advanced. Definitely this would constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence they are liable to compensate the complainant.
9. The complainant has paid `2000/- as fine as per Ext.A4 for not permanently registering the vehicle. He has paid `13,435/- towards insurance premium, `28,660/- towards road tax and `2000/- for incidental charges for which no service is received from the opposite parties. Why the opposite parties filed criminal complaint against one of their employee Ramesh Rai and what was the reason for filing criminal complaint etc are not disclosed by the opposite parties 1 & 3. All this would leads to the irresistible conclusion that Ramesh Rai has appropriated the amounts paid by the customers and being the master of Ramesh Rai, opposite parties 1 & 3 are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony sustained to him.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties 1 & 3 are directed to pay `28560+13435+2000 +2000 = `45995/- (rounded to `46,000/-) to the complainant together with a compensation of `10,000/- as a cost of `4,000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which `46,000/- will further carry interest also @12% from today till payment. Opposite party No.2 is exonerated from liabilities.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Letter sent by complainant to Opposite party.
A2. Copy of lawyer notice.
A2. (a) postal acknowledgement card.
A3. Photocopy of tax licence
A3.(a)Photocopy of Acknowledgement for Receipt of Money
A4.Photocopy of Acknowledgment for Receipt of Money
A5. Photocopy of Proforma invoice
A6.Photocopy of delivery note
A7.Photocopy of trade certificate
A8. Photocopy of Temporary Certificate of Registration.
A9. 29-9-10 Copy of lawyer notice.
A10. Postal acknowledgement card
A11. Postal acknowledgement card
A12. Photocopy of Order Booking Form.
A13. First Information Sheet
B1. Photocopy of Ledger Account (Har Auto Pvt.Ltd)
B2. Photocopy of Retail Invoice Form
B3. Photocopy of Branch Receipt Voucher
B4. Photocopy of Branch Receipt Voucher
B5. Photocopy of Branch Receipt Voucher
B6. Photocopy of Branch Receipt Voucher
B7. Policy.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
