Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/213

Gaurav Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Yamaha Motor Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Rana Adv

15 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:213 dated 01.10.2020.                                                         Date of decision: 15.12.2023.

 

Gourav Kumar S/o. Sh. Santosh Kumar, R/o. H. No.14523, Street No.3, Ward No.8, Near Vaishno Mandir, Ajit Nagar, Tibba Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. India Yamaha Motor Limited, Head Office Cum Development Centre: A3, Industrial Area, Noida-Dadri Road, Surajpur-201306, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P., India.
2. Gitansh Auto Pvt. Ltd., 174, G.T. Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.
3. India Yamaha Motor Limited, Registered Office: Ist Floor, The Great Eastern Centre, 70, Nehru Place, Behind IFCI tower, New Delhi-110019.                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Amandeep Malhotra, Advocate.

For OP1 and OP3          :         Sh. Rahul Pathak, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly put, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Motor Bike Model Yamaha FZ, Colour Black manufactured in 1/2020 by OP1 from its dealer OP2 vide invoice dated 27.01.2020 for Rs.99,200/-. At the time of its purchase, OP2 assured that the said motor bike is of good quality and assured to give best services to the complainant time to time. The complainant stated that at the time of purchase of said motor bike, the OPs provided Provisional Registration Certificate bearing No.PB-10HH-4342 dated 27.01.2020 valid up to 26.02.2020 but in the said Provisional Registration Certificate, OP2 inadvertently mentioned Maker’s Classification as ‘Yamaha FZS’ instead of ‘Yamaha FZ’ and also mentioned colour as ‘MAT DARK PURPLISH BL’ instead of ‘BLACK’      . Then the complainant approached OP2 and apprised the said facts to it then OP2 assured him that these mistakes shall be corrected when the Certificate of Registration will be issued by OP2 after 25 years from the date of invoicing. The complainant further stated that after wait for the above said period, he had never received original Registration Certificate along with necessary correction nor corrected Provisional Registration Certificate had been provided to him. The complainant claimed that he was harassed by the traffic policy many times due to non-availability of Registration Certificate which expired on 26.02.2020 due to which the complainant was not able to use his bike. As such, he suffered loss of work, mental and physical loss. He many times requested OP2 to take necessary action but it always lingered on the matter. Even after personal visits and request through telephone, emails etc., OP2 failed to adhere to the genuine requests of the complainant and had not issued the Registration Certificate with necessary corrections. The complainant further stated that the OPs intentionally did not redress his grievances due to which the complainant suffered harassment, mental pain and financial loss for which he is entitled to compensation from the OPs. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to issue Registration Certificate with corrections and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- besides litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP1 and OP3 appeared and filed joint written statement and by taking preliminary objections/submissions, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint, suppression of material facts; lack of cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. OP1 and OP3 stated that the complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and vexatious and has been filed to malign their goodwill and reputation. The complainant approached OP2 on 25.01.2020 to make an enquiry about “Yamaha FZS FI” Motorcycle and he again approached OP2 on 26.01.2020 and purchased “Yamaha FZ16 FI” black colour motorcycle. But back office of OP1 inadvertently prepared invoice for “Yamaha FZS FI Black” motorcycle as per the earlier enquiry made by the complainant on 25.01.2020. OP1 and OP3 further stated that it does not sell motorcycles to any individual customer and only sells motorcycles to its authorized dealers appointed across the length and breadth of the country. The Dealer Sales Agreement executed between OP1 and OP3 and its dealers governs the relationship between them and its dealers on Principal-to-Principal basis. According to OP1 and OP3, their liability is limited only for any manufacturing defect in the motorcycle or post service problems within the period of warranty extended by them. Further, the sale related issues like issuance and registration of motorcycle are solely handed by their dealers. There is no privity of contract or role between OP1 and OP3 with the complainant regarding insurance, RTO registration. Op1 and Op3 further averred that OP2 had sent relevant documents to the Regional Transport Office for registration along with copy of invoice who on the basis of inadvertent mistake in the invoice issued Registration Certificate mentioning the name of motorcycle as “FZS Black” instead of “FZ16 Black”.  The complainant approached OP2 regarding said error and OP2 assured him to get the Registration Certificate rectified and corrected. Then Op2 applied for rectification/correction in Registration Certificate but in the meantime, Govt. of India announced nationwide lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic due to which process of correction in Registration Certificate was delayed. Moreover, the old Registration Certificate was lying with OP2 but the complainant refused to take the same despite repeated requests and reminder. In the end, OP1 and OP3 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Initially, OP2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.04.2021. However, on 26.07.2021, Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate filed application for setting aside exparte proceedings order dated 01.04.2021 and for seeking permission to join the proceedings. The said application was allowed vide order dated 10.11.2022 subject to payment of Rs.1000/- payable to the complainant.

                   Thereafter, OP2 filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground that the complaint is not a consumer dispute; bad for non-joinder of necessary party; mis-representation and concealment of material facts; lack of jurisdiction etc. OP2 averred that there are no pleading or proof against hiring of its service for consideration for preparing of original RC. According to OP2, Licensing Authority, Ludhiana has not been made a party because in the invoice dated 27.01.2020, colour ‘Black’ is duly written whereas in para No.3 of the complaint, the complainant stated that he has not received the original RC along with its correction (Make Yamaha ‘FZ’ instead of Yamaha ‘FZS’ and colour ‘Black’ instead of ‘MAT DARK PURPLISH BL’ and as such, the mistake if any, may have been occurred in the office of Licensing Authority, Ludhiana. OP2 further stated that it is the complainant who received the original RC from licensing authority but he never handed over the physically original RC to it and in fact, the mistake in the RC, if any, was not brought to knowledge of OP2 by the complainant. The complainant has concealed the fact of applying original RC himself after receiving original documents from OP2 and before applying for RC, he has also shown his ignorance about the typical mistake in RC or documents which is always curable. The said mistake was not brought to knowledge of the OP2. Even the complainant has concealed the fact regarding receiving the correct invoice itself in the month of purchase which is evident from email dated 19.05.2020 which is well before filing of present complaint dated 01.10.2020. OP2 further stated that as it is the complainant who applied for the original RC himself, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2.

                   On merits, OP2 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. OP2 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C12 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. P. Satish Kumar, authorized representative of OP1 and OP3 along with documents Ex. OP1 is the copy of resolution, Ex. OP2 is the copy of free

service & warranty card and closed the evidence.

                   The counsel for OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. R2 of Sh. Balbir Singh, Manager of OP2 along with documents Ex. R2/1 to Ex/R2/11 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statements along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                On 27.01.2020, on purchase of motorcycle from OP2 which is manufactured by OP1 and OP3, the OP2 generated an invoice Ex. C1 = Ex. R2/10 and a Provisional Registration Certificate wherein Maker’s name was classified as ‘Yamaha FZS’ instead of ‘Yamaha FZ’ and also mentioned colour as ‘MAT DARK PURPLISH BL’ instead of ‘BLACK’. Becoming aware of the discrepancies in the said documents, the complainant approached and requested OP2 for its rectification so that these irregularities may not be reflected in the regular registration certificate of the vehicle which was still to be registered. Despite realizing its mistake, OP2 initially kept the matter pending by saying that rectification can only be carried out once registration process is completed with the Registering Authority and thereafter, the process for correction could be initiated at their end. In para No.,4, 10 and 13 of the written statement submitted by OP1 and OP3, the makers of the vehicle, they had admitted that subsequent to the sale of the motorcycle, the invoice was inadvertently prepared. OP2 had sent the said documents to Regional Transport Office (RTO) for registration which lead to the issuance of Registration Certificate wherein Motorcycle was mentioned as ‘”FZS Black” instead of “FZ16 Black”.

8.                During the course of proceedings of this complaint on 18.02.2022, Manager namely Balbir Singh of OP2 had suffered a statement that he has received the original RC from the complainant for the purpose of changing the model name from the concerned authorities. After rectifying the mistake, same was handed over to the complainant in September 2022 and this fact stands acknowledged by the complainant in his statement dated 14.12.2023 made before this Commission. So, OP2 took more than 2½ year in rectification of the RC. So it is clear that the complainant remained deprived of his free usage of motorcycle owing to the discrepancies in the registration certificate which was generated at the end of OP2. The contentions of the counsel for OP2 that it is the office of Regional Transport Office which has caused delay, is devoid of any merits and substance. Had, OP2 issued an invoice with correct particulars, office of RTO must have issued the RC within stipulated time and mental harassment to the complainant could have been avoided. Under the circumstances, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP2. As such, it would be just and appropriate if OP2 directed to pay a composite costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP2 to pay a composite costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till its actual payment. However, the complaint as against OP1 and OP3 is hereby dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                        (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                     President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:15.12.2023.

Gobind Ram.