Date of filing : 02-12-2010
Date of order : 29-06-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.259/2010
Dated this, the 29th day of June 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Sadashiva Bhat, } Complainant
S/o. Subbanna Bhat,
T.Thottethodi House,
Po. Meeyapadavu, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
(Adv. M.Vittala. 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 Advs. S.Mahalinga, Kasaragod &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 ALTO STD vehicle on 2-7-2010. It’s temporary registration was valid up to 12-07-2010. According to complainant though opposite party No.1 collected the road tax, insurance premium and registration charges they only registered the vehicle and no other process done for the permanent registration of the vehicle.. Due to that the complainant was constrained to pay 2000/- as fine for not registering the vehicle in time. 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.2 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 ` 7260/- was collected towards insurance premium for which an official receipt has been given to the complainant. An amount of `245426/- has been collected from the complainant which included the price of vehicle after discount of `3260/-. 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 A11 marked on his side. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
6. Exts A2 and A10 proves that in addition to the purchase price of the vehicle complainant paid insurance premium, `7260 road tax, `13805/- incidental charges 2600/- etc to opposite party No.1.
7. 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. Definitely this would constitute unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence they are liable to compensate the complainant.
8. The complainant has paid `2000/- as fine for not permanently registering the vehicle within the stipulated time . He has paid ` 7260/- towards insurance premium, `13805/- towards road tax and `2600/- 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 ` 7260+13805+2000 +2600 = ` 25665/- 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 ` 25665/- will further carry interest also @12% from today till payment. Opposite party No.2 is exonerated from liabilities.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1. Photocopy of RC
A2.Order Booking Form.
A3. Photocopy of Temporary Certificate of Registration.
A4. Copy of lawyer notice.
A5.Postal acknowledgement card
A6.29-9-10 copy of lawyer notice.
A7. Postal acknowledgement card.
A8. Postal acknowledgement card.
A9. Photocopy of Proforma Invoice.
A10. Photocopy of First Information sheet.
A11. Photocopy of Delivery note.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
