Punjab

Sangrur

CC/409/2018

Saurav Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Yamaha Motor Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Harwinder Sharma

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 409

 Instituted on:   03.10.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     04.08.2022

 

Sourav Mittal son of Sh. Vijay Mittal, resident of H.No.272, Magazine Street, Ward No.17, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     India Yamaha Motor Private Limited, A-3, Industrial Area, Surajpur-201306, Noida (UP) through its Managing Director.

2.     Goverdhan Automobiles (Authorized dealer of Yamaha Motorcycle) Opposite Verka Milk Plant, Patiala Road, Sangrur through its Manager 148001.

3.     State of Punjab through District Transport Officer, Sangrur 148001.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant  : Shri S.S. Blaggan, Adv. 

For OP No.1              : Shri Udit Goyal, Adv.             

For OP 2                    : Shri Satpal Sharma, Adv.

For OP NO.3.             : None.

 

Quorum                                          

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

                                                                       FINAL ORDER

 

1.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging inter-alia that the complainant  on 31.3.2017 approached OP number 2 and purchased one motorcycle FZS F1 Standard for Rs.82,771/- against invoice number 186 dated 31.3.2017, which was got financed from HDFC Bank Limited.  It is further  averred that at the time of sale of the motorcycle OP number 2 told the complainant that the motorcycle is of 2017 model. The complainant applied for the registration of the motorcycle with the OP number 2 and the OP number 3 prepared the registration certificate.  Further case of complainant is that in the month of August, 2018 the complainant approached the auto dealer for selling the above said motorcycle, who disclosed that the manufacturing year mentioned in the registration certificate if 2016 instead of 2017, as such the complainant came to know that the OP number 2 has sold the motorcycle of 2016 model against 2017 model. As such, the complainant approached OP number 2 and apprised above this fact and requested the OP for redressal of his grievance, but nothing was done.  It is further averred that the complainant earlier filed a consumer complaint against Ops number 1 and 2 regarding the supply of defective motorcycle i.e. fuel indication problem and meter problem, which was allowed vide order dated 18.9.2017.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the vehicle with a new model of 2017 or to refund the purchase price of the same i.e. Rs.82,771/- alongwith interest and also for Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment  and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon being served, the OPs appeared and filed written reply. In reply, OP number 1 has taken some preliminary objections that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, that the OP number 1 does not sell its vehicles to any individual customer and the Op sells the vehicles to its dealers only. That the on-road purchase price of the motorcycle was Rs.97,000/- and upon request of the complainant for discount and owing the fact that the motorcycle was BS-III model manufactured in the year 2016, a discount of Rs.17,000/- was given to the complainant. It has been denied that the OP sold the complainant the motorcycle of 2016 model by saying 2017 model. It is further averred that due to inadvertent mistake of employee of OP while entering the details of motorcycle in the autoboom software that the incorrect manufacturing year of 2017 was replicated automatically.  That the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands.  On merits, the sale and purchase of motorcycle by the complainant is admitted. It is stated that the manufacturing date is 1.10.2016. In form 20 the month and year of manufacture has been mentioned as October, 2016. In provisional registration certificate issued by Punjab Transport Department the month and year of manufacture has been mentioned as 1.10.2016 and in Form-21 sale certificate, the date is also mentioned as October-2016.  However, it is admitted that OP number 2 issued invoice number 186 dated 31.3.2017 for a sum of Rs.82,771/-, wherein due to clerical mistake the year was mentioned as 2017 instead of 2016.   It is further averred that the complainant earlier filed a complaint in this Forum and the same has already been decided by this Forum. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass and humiliate the OP as previously also the complainant has filed the complaint to get his motorcycle changed under the garb of that complaint.   It is further averred that the said mistake of the manufacturing year in the invoice occurred due to inadvertence and was a clerical mistake. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, it is stated that the data of the vehicles which are sold by the automobile dealer cum special registering authority concerned, is fed in the software of sarthi developed by the NIC at the dealer point and thereafter only the print of the registration certificate of the vehicle is taken by the office of the OP. According to the complainant, he had purchased a motorcycle from the OP number 2 after it was told by them that the same was of 2017 model, but that the OP number 2 had mentioned its manufacturing year as 2016.  It is further stated that no relief has been claimed against OP number 3 and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence before this Commission in the shape of documents and affidavits.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by both the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.

7.             The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a motorcycle from OP number 2 on 31.3.2017 by spending an amount of Rs.82,771/- vide invoice, copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 2 sold the complainant  2016 model motorcycle  instead of 2017 model. To support this contention, the complainant has referred the copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the manufacturing year is 2017.  Ex.C-3 is the copy of registration certificate, wherein it has been clearly stated that the manufacturing year of the motorcycle in question is 10/2016.  Even this fact is also not in dispute between the parties.   Though the stand of OP number 2 is that the motorcycle in question was sold to the complainant by saying that the model is 2016 and for this even discount was also given to the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that though the stand of the OP number 2 is that except Ex.C-2 in all the documents the OP number 2 mentioned the model 2016 as is evident from the Form No.22 Ex.OP-1, form No.20 Ex.OP-3, sale certificate Ex.OP-5.  But the fact remains that the OP number 2  mentioned wrong  model 2017 in the document sale invoice Ex.C-2 instead of 2016.  There is no explanation from the side of OP number 2 that why it was so.

8.             Further a bare perusal of record reveals that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint against the Ops number 1 and 2, which has already been decided on 18.09.2017, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1/2 wherein a direction was given to the OP for replacement of some of the parts and that order has already been complied with and it reveals that the earlier order has nothing to do with this complaint. Though the learned counsel for the Ops have argued that a discount of Rs.17,000/- was given to the complainant at the time of sale of the motorcycle, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the Ops as they have not produced any such voucher showing discount of the above said amount nor there is any mention on the invoice dated 31.3.2017 that a discount of Rs.17,000/- was granted to the complainant by OP number 2. Further in the present case the dispute is about the model of the motorcycle only and there is no case of complainant about any defect or manufacturing defect in the motorcycle etc. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 2 has sold the complainant 2016 model motorcycle in the year 2017 by mentioning the year 2017 on the invoice Ex.C-2, for which the complainant deserves to be compensated.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite party number 2 within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.           A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                August 4, 2022.