The appeal is recorded against the Final Order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Jalpaiguri dated 31.01.2019 in CC No 42 of 2018. The case was disposed of on merit with contest in favour of the complainant. The op sides of that case have registered this instant appeal. The complaint case in short is that he has purchased a Motor Bike Yamaha YZF bearing Chassis No. MEIRGO62AH0053290 and Engine No. G3C7E0139651 on 07-12-2017 from Respondent No. 1 by making payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rupees one lac thirty-five thousand) only in cash and on that day the Respondent No. 1 after receiving the said money issued a Money Receipt being No. 06 dated 07-12-2017 and also issued a Sale Intimation dated 07-12-2017 in favour of the Complainant / Respondent.

The OP No. 2 who is the dealer issued a service record being No. 250036 dated 07-12-2017 and Tax Invoice dated 07-12-2017 and Sales. Certificate FORM 21 under Rules 47(a) (d) of Central Vehicle Rules 1989 in the name of the Complainant, Sale Invoice in the name of the Complainant and also initial certificate of compliance with pollution standards, safety standards of components quality and road worthiness by India Yamaha Motors Pvt. Ltd. dated October 2017.

That the Respondent No. 2 i.e., M/S Global Motors, having its office cum shop room at Golden Heights Uppere Ground Floor, Burdwan Road, Siliguri, Dist. Darjeeling issued the Complainant a Temporary Certificate of Registration being Registration No. WB74TC8861 dated 04-05-2018 and the said certificate is valid for one month i.e., up to 02 06-2018.

That the Complainant after expire of temporary certificate of Registration being Registration No. WB74TC8861 dated 04-05-2018 on several times went to the Respondents office and requested them to issue the Permanent Registration Certificate of the said Motor Bike but the Respondents assured the Complainant as early as possible they will give the Registration Certificate to the Complainant.

That due to expire of date of temporary certificate of Registration being Registration No. WB74TC8861 dated 04-05-2018 the Complainant on 18-07-2018 when on the way with his Motor Bike the Siliguri Police Commissionerate Traffic Department caught the Complainant and asked to the Complainant to show the Registration Certificate of the Motor Bike, the Complainant at that time failed to show the Permanent Registration Certificate to the Traffic Department as such the Siliguri Traffic charged fine from the Complainant and on acceptance of fine amount from him issued a Compound Slip being No. 59055 dated 18 07-2018 to the Complainant.

That after the above incidents the Complainant again went to the Respondents' office and informed the above incident. The Respondents then for the first time replied that the same Chassis number MEIRG062AH0053290 of the said Motor Bike of the Complainant a Registration Certificate being No. UP70EB9106 had been already issued by RTO, Allahabad in the name of one Kanchan Kumari, S/O. Pradip Saroj but in the said Registration Certificate the Engine number of the vehicle was different. But the facts remained that the chassis number of the Complainant and the Kanchan Kumari is the same and such type of latches had been made purely on the part of the OP.

That the Complainant thereafter on several times requested the OPs to issue the Registration Certificate of the said Motor Bike and it is pertinent to mention here the Complainant requested the Ops through mail on 12-06-2018 vide complain No. IC38702X7W0 but the OPs did not take any steps for issuing the Permanent Registration Certificate to the Complainant, all the requests of the Complainant went into vain as such the Complainant compelled to file this complaint before the Hon'ble Forum. The seller of the bike was of No 1 who happened to be the sub-dealer under authorized dealer OP No 2.

Both OP No 1 and 2 has contested the case by filing separate W.V Who denied all the Material allegations leveled against them and their positive case was that accordingly after sale of the said asset the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 issued necessary receipts, memo and other documents/papers and also provided the temporary certificate of registration of the said asset to the Complainant.

Thus, it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 has not been negligent while completing its sale process and neither have there been any unfair trade practice, hence there lies no question of harassment and deficiency in service.

That the entire issue cropped up since, there has been use of similar Chassis number with another motorcycle and which got registered with Allahabad RTO. That upon enquiry the Opposite Parties had come to the know that the said asset [motorcycle] was sold to one Kanchan Kumari, Son of Pradip Saroj by M/s Ashish Auto of Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant was made aware of the said facts but, reason best known to the Complainant he did not join the necessary parties i.e., M/s Ashish Auto of Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh and also Kanchan Kumari, Son of Pradip Saroj.

Moreover, the manufacturer of the said asset was also required to be added as a party in this instant complaint because there may be mistake and error on the part of the manufacturer i.e., India Yamaha Motors Pvt. Ltd.; if two assets/motorcycles have been manufactured with same chassis number. Hence, in absence of such necessary parties the issue of the case cannot be framed and as a consequence of such procedural lapses the grievance cannot be redressed. Therefore, the complainant ought to have impleaded all those parties from whom he is claiming relief in the case.

On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.2, has communicated with all necessary parties to address the issue and come to a logical conclusion to provide service to the complainant.

That after numerous communication and persuasion by the Opposite Parties the rectification has been done by the Allahabad RTO for the wrong entry of Chassis number.

Ld. Forum after completion of hearing in due Process came to a conclusion that due to latches, negligence and deficiency of service on the part of both OP No. 1and 2 the complainant could not utilize the bike for plying on the road and sustained huge loss. So, the complainant was awarded with compensation and equitable relieves.

 Being aggrieved with the final order this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. forum has wrongly adjudicated the dispute without applying the judicial mind and the observation or Ld. forum was full of contradictions, errors etc.

 The appeal was admitted for hearing. The complainant/ respondent has Contested the appeal.

 Ld. Advocate of both sides has conducted and Participated in the hearing Process.

 Decision with reasons,

Having heard the appeal through the lid Advocates to both sides it has established beyond any doubt that the respondent has purchased the Yamaha Motor bike from sub-dealer (OP-1) under authorized main dealer (of No 2), having Chassis No. MEIRGO62AH0053290 and Engine no G3C7E0 139651 on 07. 12. 2017 by making Payment of show room price Rs 1,35,000/-and obtained a temporary certificate of Registration one month.

The Permanent Motor Vehicle registration certificate could not be obtained for that bike on the ground that the R.T.O. of Allahabad had already registered the similar Chassis no to another vehicle in the name of one Kanchan Kumari of Uttar Pradesh and for that reason the concern R.T.O. of Jalpaiguri could not register the vehicle and ultimately the complainant became the worst sufferer.

Here, in this dispute actually the fault was there on the part of the Manufactures of the vehicle as the manufacturer through Mistake Marketed two bikes in the similar chassis number though, the Engine numbers of two vehicles are different.

The complainant does not implead the Manufacturer of the vehicle i.e., M/S India Yamaha Motors Ltd. as party to the dispute.

Ld. Adv. of the appellant (OP No.2) at the time of hearing mentioned that after sale of the said asset the Appellant & Respondent No.2 had issued all necessary receipts, memo and other documents/papers and also provided the temporary certificate of registration of the said asset to the Respondent No.1.

Thus, it was made crystal clear that the Appellant had not "been negligent while completing its sale process and neither have there been any unfair trade practice, hence there lied no question of harassment and deficiency in service, since the primary duty of the Appellant was to provide/sell a motor cycle without any manufacturing defect.

The entire issue cropped up since, there has been use of similar Chassis number with another motorcycle and which got registered with Allahabad R.T.0. That upon enquiry the Appellant had come to know that another Motorcycle was sold to one Kanchan Kumari, Son of Pradip Saroj by M/S Ashish Auto of Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh.

That the said asset [motorcycle] was sold to one Kanchan Kumari, Son of Pradip Saroj by M/s Ashish Auto of Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. The Respondent No.1 was made aware of the said facts but, reason best known to the Respondent No.1 he did not join the necessary parties i.e., M/s Ashish Auto of Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh and also Kanchan Kumari, Son of Pradip Saroj in the Complaint before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalpaiguri.

Moreover, the manufacturer of the said asset was also required to be added as a party in the complaint because there may be mistake and error on the part of the manufacturer 1.e. India Yamaha Motors Pvt. Ltd.; if two assets/motorcycles have been manufactured with same chassis number. Hence, in absence of such necessary parties the issue of the case cannot be framed and as a consequence of such procedural lapses the grievance cannot be redressed. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 ought to have impleaded all those parties from whom he claimed relief in the case before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalpaiguri.

On the other hand, the Appellant had communicated with all necessary parties to address the issue and come to a logical conclusion to provide service to the Respondent No.1. That the records of the Allahabad RTO were required to unravel the certainty of the fact and also of the Jalpaiguri RTO for the reasons of rejection of the registration. Hence, the Complainant should have added the Allahabad RTO and Jalpaiguri RTO as proforma opposite parties since, their evidence was an imminent necessity in the case filed before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Jalpaiguri.

Moreover, after numerous communication and persuasion by the Appellant the rectification had been done by the Allahabad RTO for the wrong entry of Chassis number.

That upon repeated persuasions and communications the rectification had been done by the Allahabad RTO for the wrong entry of Chassis Number by them.

Lo Adv. of the respondent No 1 (complainant) countered the arguments of the appellant side and submitted that after the lapse of temporary certificate Period the complainant was compelled to ply the vehicle on road without registration and he was penalized by the traffic police.

There after the Complainant/Respondent No.1 on several times requested the Appellant to issue the registration certificate of the said motor bike and it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant/Respondent No.1 requested the Appellants through e-mail on 12/06/2018 vide complaint no. IC38702X7W0 but the Appellant did not take any steps for issuing the permanent registration certificate to the complainant/Respondent No.1, all the requests of the complainant/Respondent No.1 went into vain as such the complainant/Respondent No.1 was compelled to file a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, at Jalpaiguri and

That as such after expiry of the aforesaid temporary registration issued in respect of the aforesaid vehicle the complainant/Respondent No. 1 has several times visited the appellants as well as the Proforma Respondent No. 2 with a request to provide him the permanent registration of the aforesaid vehicle and also informed them that in absence of the same the complainant/Respondent No. 1 is unable to ply the motor vehicle but the present appellant as well as the Proforma Respondent No. 2 had not provide a cogent reply as to when they will be able to handover the permanent registration certificate of the aforesaid motor vehicle to the complainant/Respondent No. 1, even after receiving the entire cost for registration of the said vehicle in advance.

The complainant due to some urgency for his work purposes was forced to ply the vehicle on 18.07.2018 and on the way he was stopped by Siliguri Police Commissionerate Traffic Department and as he failed to show the permanent registration certificate of the vehicle he had to pay a fine and a compound slip being No. 59055 dated 18.07.2018 was issued to the complainant/Respondent No. 1, after the said incident the complainant/Respondent No. 1 went to the Appellant as well as the Proforma Respondent No. 1 with a demand of providing permanent registration of the vehicle and only then the appellant and the Proforma Respondent No. 2 informed the complainant that a registration certificate being no. UP70EB9106 has been issued in the name of one Kanchan Kumari, S/W/D of Pradip Saroj and the Chassis number of the said vehicle is identical to the chassis number of the vehicle of the complainant/Respondent No. 1 and as such the concerned ARTO have refused to provide permanent registration to the vehicle of the complainant/Respondent No. 1 and when asked as to what step has been taken to rectify the same the appellant as well as the Proforma respondent No. 2 was unable to provide a cogent reply to the complainant/Respondent No. 1.

 That after filing of the consumer case being no. 42 of 2018 on (Th 16.08.2018 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, at Jalpaiguri, the present appellant after receiving the summon of the said case had sent a letter to India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd as well as M/s Ashish Auto on 22.08.2018 addressing the issue of the complainant/Respondent No. 1 and categorically mentioning that the consumer i.e., the complainant/Respondent No. 1 have lodged a consumer complaint ;and they have received the paper from the Ld. Court and during the course of trial have also filed a rectified  certificate of registration mentioning the correct chassis number of the vehicle purchased by Kanchan Kumari on 01.11.2018.

From the above it clearly transpired the negligent act, conduct and deficiency in service of the appellant as well as the Proforma Respondent No. 2 as because prior to receiving of the summons of the case filed by the complainant/Respondent No. 1, the applicant was neglecting and/or negating to take any step to resolve the problem and issues of the complainant/Respondent No. 1 and it is only after receiving the summons of the Ld. Court below they made an endeavor to resolve the issues of the complainant/Respondent No. 1 in realm and the registration certificate of said Kanchan Kumari was accordingly rectified and the appellant have filed the same before the Ld. Court below.

 That its fact proves that the appellant as well as the Proforma Respondent No. 2 is/was only responsible and capable of resolving the issues faced by the complainant/Respondent No. 1 who is a bonafide consumer of the appellant as well as the Proforma Respondent No. 2 but they made no endeavor to do so before receiving the summons of the Ld. Court below as such their plea of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party is vague and obnoxious.

 That the appellant as well as the Proforma Respondent No. 2 is/was solely responsible for the problems faced by the complainant/Respondent No. 1 and it is quite clear and evident that the complainant is/was unable to ply his motor vehicle on and from 02.06.2018 for no permanent registration of the vehicle even after purchasing it out of his hard earned money and paying the entire cost of registration of the said vehicle to the appellant and the vehicle is/was left in idle condition since the month of July 2018 and it has been more than three years that the vehicle is lying in such condition and as such the physical condition of the vehicle is deteriorated furthermore the complainant/Respondent No. 1 over this period of years causing pecuniary loss and subjecting him to tremendous mental agony and pain.

After hearing both sides now it has become crystal clear that main fault way there on the Part of Manufacture for marketing two vehicles with similar chassis Number.

It is also established that the complainant filed earlier Consumer complaint for same cause of action and receiving the notice of that case, the OP No. 1 and 2 has become vigil and tried their level best to have a proper rectification of the certificate issued by R.TO. Allahabad and the obstacle of Registration of the vehicle of the complainant was removed and he had chance to have R.T.O. registration of the vehicle during the pendency of the case.

The vehicle is now under the possession of the complainant and he can utilize the vehicle for his purpose.

On the other hand, the seller and dealer of the vehicle also did not take emergency steps for rectification of the defect in due course when the vehicle registration was refused by R.T.O. due to earlier registration of another vehicle with similar chassis no had already registered by R.T.O. Allahabad.

  The order of Ld. Forum also is found with apparent Mistake as the vehicle, still owns by the complainant, they why the dealer could be asked to refund the consideration price of the vehicle to the tune Rs. 1,35,000/-

The compensation Amount awarded to the tame of Rs. 50,000/- deemed Justified as the value of the bike was decreased due to kept it in idle condition for a considerable Period and chance of damage for natural wear and tear cannot be ruled out.

Rather, until the complainant came to the Forum for taking legal action against the OP, they were reluctant to take utmost care to remove the hurdles which was facing by the complainant for not enjoying the service of the bike for want of proper registration.

It has already decided that through mistake and inadvertent the manufacture of the bike marketed two bikes with similar chassis Number which was the root cause of such complication and said Manufacture was not impleaded as party and in spite of that OP No. 1 and 2 has made the sale transaction with the complainant as agent of the Manufacturer and for that reason they cannot evade their liability for not timely extending their cooperate hands to the bonafide consumer while it was required to him in that crucial time.

So, the over all view of this bench is that save and except the order of Ld. Forum for refund the price of the bike, the rest portion of the order and observations of the Ld. Forum is appreciable and does not require any interference.  

Thus, the appeal should be allowed partly to modify the Final Order of the Ld. Forum.

Hence it is Ordered,

That the appeal be and the same is partly allowed on contest against Respondent No.1 and ex-party against Respondent No. 2. The ordering portion of the said Final Order dated 31.01.2019 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri in CC No. 42 of 2018 is modified to the effect that the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 shall not have to refund the consideration price of the bike to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- and the complainant shall not have to return the bike to the seller. The order for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and payment of litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/- shall remain intact. The order of Ld. Forum for depositing Rs.15,000/- to the consumer legal Aid Account is rescinded. The Appellant and Respondent No.2 are directed to take immediate steps for registration of the vehicle within 45 days if it has yet registered. If the appellant and Respondent No. 1 fails to comply this order with in 45 days then 9% P.A shall be imposed as interest over the awarded money.

Let a copy of this order to supplied to the parties of the appeal free of cost and the same to be communicated to the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri.