Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/163

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jai Shiv Authmobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Lakhwinder Singh Golewalia

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

               C.C. No. :                  163 of 2020

  Date of Institution:      13.10.2020

  Date of Decision :       07.10.2024

 

Gurpreet Singh aged about 45 years son of Janak Singh son of Jaswant Singh, resident of Village Golewala, (Patti Maluka), Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Jai Shiv Automobiles, Deals in Hero Moto Corp. Motor Cycles & Scooters, Village Golewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot through its  Authorized Signatory/Proprietor/Partner.
2. Hero Motor Corp. Ltd. Grand Plaza, Plot No.2, Nelson Mandala Road, Basant Vihar, New Delhi through its M.D./Authorized Signatory/Proprietor.
3. U.P. Money Ltd. Easy Fianance, H.O. 13 and 23, Nehru Sidhant Kendar, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.                                                                          .......OPs

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum:     Sh Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:     Sh Lakhwinder Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

                 Sh Kailsh Goyal, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                  OP-1 and OP-3 Exparte,

* * * * * * *

cc no.163 of 2020

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)

ORDER

                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against OPs pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has requested for seeking directions to OPs to register the motor cycle Make Hero HF bearing Chassis no. (1) 3878, Engine No.MA11ENKCIJ05743; to provide original bill; make it insured or to return the amount of cost price of Rs.58,500/-, Rs.16,010/-paid by complainant with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.One lac on account of deficiency in service, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                    The brief facts of the present complaint pleaded by the complainant are that OP-1 and 2 sold the aforementioned motor cycle to complainant through OP-1 for Rs.58,500/-that included price of motor cycle along with registration charges, insurance and cow cess. It is submitted that OP-1 and 2 did not issue any bill and delivered the said vehicle at his house through Delivery Challan No.1041 dated 01.11.2019. further submitted that complainant paid Rs.5000/-in cash as downpayment for said vehicle and remaining amount was got financed by OP-1 and OP-2 through OP-3 and the time of said financing, OP-3 took signatures of complainant on several blank papers at his shop situated in his village. Ld counsel for complainant has pleaded that at the time of selling the said vehicle, OP-1 assured complainant regarding registration of said vehicle

cc no.163 of 2020

through competent authority within one month from the sale of said vehicle i.e from 01.11.2019, but till now, no registration certificate has ever been provided to complainant and without RC, complainant is unable to move the vehicle on road. OP-1 also assured to get insured the vehicle within one month, but from the date of purchase till now, neither any registration certificate nor any insurance cover for said vehicle has been provided to him despite repeated requests. All this amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered huge harassment and mental agony. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund the amount of Rs.58,500/-i.e price of said vehicle, Rs.16,010/-paid through downpayment and EMIs to OPs. Complainant has also sought directions to OPs to pay him Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him, Rs.1,00,000/-for deficiency in service and Rs.20,000/-as cost of litigation. Hence, the present complaint.  

 3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.10.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                        On receipt of notice issued by this Commission, OP-1 appeared through one Devinder Pal Singh, but despite availing sufficient opportunities, OP-1 did not file reply and even stopped

cc no.163 of 2020

making presence before the Commission. There is no doubt that OP-1 has sufficient notice about present complaint but he did not come present in the Commission and also did not file any reply. Meaning thereby, OP-1 is intentionally avoiding the allegations of complainant or has nothing to contest in present case, therefore, vide order dated 21.10.2021, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte.

5                                      As per office report, notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was issued to OP-3 through registered cover, but it did not receive back. Acknowledgement might have been mis-laid or lost in transit. It is presumed that notice might have been served to OP-3 but despite making several calls to OP-3, no body appeared in the Commission on their behalf on date fixed either in person or through counsel, therefore, after waiting for a long period till 4.00 O’ clock, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.02.2021.

6                               OP-2 filed written version taking preliminary objections that present complaint is misconceived and complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands. It is averred that no cause of action arises against answering OP and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. It is further averred that answering OP sells its vehicles and spare parts to its authorized dealers on principle to principle basis and it has no control over any kind of business or transaction occurred between complainant and OP-1. Further averred that it comes

cc no.163 of 2020

under the purview of Dealer to do paper work of vehicle and provide papers to the complainant as per their mutual understanding and OP-2 has no knowledge about matter involved in present case as there is no communication between complainant and answering OP. It is submitted that only OP-1 can explain the factual position to defend the allegations levelled by complainant. As per OP-2, it has been unnecessarily impleaded in the array of OPs. Moreover, complainant has not levelled any allegation against OP-2 regarding any manufacturing defect or warranty of vehicle. However, on merits, ld counsel for OP-2 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering OP sells its products directly to its authorized dealers and these authorized dealers further sell the products in the market to customers and OP-2 is no party in the any kind of transaction occurred between complainant and OP-1 as it has no role in selling the vehicle to the complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

7                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW/A, Delivery Challan No. 1041 dated 01.11.2019 Ex OP-1, receipts for Rs.2755/-each from Ex C-2 to Ex C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

 

cc no.163 of 2020

8                      To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Siddharth Tewari Representative of OP-2 as Ex OP-2/1, copy of Warranty Policy Ex OP-2/2, copy of limitation of Warranty Policy Ex OP-2/3 and then, also closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2.

9                  We have heard the ld counsel for the complainant as well as opposite parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

10                 From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the motorcycle in question from OP-1 for Rs.58,500/- with the financial assistance provided by OP-3. At the time of selling the said vehicle, OP-1 assured to provide registration certificate and insurance for vehicle, but thereafter, he neither completed process for procuring registration certificate nor got insured the said vehicle. Moreover, there seems to be unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 as it has not issued proper bill to complainant.

 11                              It is clear and evident from Ex C-1 Delivery Challan dated 01.11.2019 that complainant is the consumer of OP-1. There is also no doubt to the pleadings of complainant that OP-1 has not issued valid bill as complainant is in possession of only delivery challan

cc no.163 of 2020

to justify his position that he purchased the said vehicle from OP-1. Receipts Ex C-2 to 5 further prove the fact that said vehicle was purchased by complainant with the help of financial assistance of OP-3 as OP-3 granted loan for said purchase and thereafter, complainant paid some equal monthly instalments for cost paid by OP-3 to OP-1. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence and all documents placed on record by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

12                         After  careful  perusal of the record and in the light of  aforementioned discussion, we have  come to the conclusion that there is unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 as OP-1 intentionally did not issue bill for selling the said motorcycle to complainant. Moreover, it is the liability of OP-1 seller to get registered the vehicle from the Regional Transport Authority and to procure insurance cover for said vehicle. As per instructions issued by Government, no vehicle can ply over road without getting registered from Regional Transport Authority. And it is the duty of OP-1 dealer to complete the process of all documents and send the same to competent authority for obtaining registration certificate for said vehicle. Moreover, OP-1 charged the amount of Rs.58,500/-from complainant that included price of vehicle alongwith cost for registration certificate and for insurance cover.

 

 

cc no.163 of 2020

13                                           It is also observed that complainant has been suffering huge harassment and mental agony due to not providing the RC by OP-1. Registration Certificate is a very necessary document for plying the vehicle on road. Without RC, vehicle cannot be taken and used over road. Even without registration certificate, vehicle cannot be got insured and without insurance cover, there is no safety for vehicle and vehicle holder. Moreover, in the absence of RC, vehicle can be confiscated by Traffic Police anywhere at any time. Thus, there is no doubt that without possession of Registration Certificate, complainant is unable to use the said motorcycle. As OP-1 exparte and there is no rebuttal from OP-1 side, which implies that OP-1 did not make any effort or strived to redress the grievance of complainant and preferred to remain silent despite having sufficient notice of requests and present complaint for providing RC.

14                          From the above discussion and keeping in view evidence and documents brought on record, it is made out that complainant has succeeded in proving his case. As Consumer Protection Act is meant for the welfare and for safeguarding the interests of genuine consumers, therefore, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed against OP-1 with following directions to OP-1:

1. OP-1 is also directed to issue proper bill for motorcycle sold to complainant on 01.11.2019, to make Registration Certificate alongwith insurance cover for said vehicle. (If RC and Insurance are provided by OP-1, then, complainant is also directed to clear the remaining amount to concerned party i.e OP-3.

Or

to refund Rs.16,010/-paid by complainant as downpayment of Rs.5000/- and through EMIs paid to OP-3 and to pay Rs.58,500/-to OP-3 Finance Company that has made entire payment for said vehicle to OP-1. Motorcycle in question be returned by complainant to OP-1 on receipt of aforementioned award amount from OP-1. OP-3 is also directed to clear all the dues against complainant on receiving the aforementioned amount from OP-1.

b                                 As complainant has suffered huge harassment and mental agony, therefore, complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.5000/-besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses.

15                          Compliance of this order be made by OP-1 within 45 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OP-1 shall be entitled to proceed as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

16                             It is observed that Hero Motor Corporation/OP-2 and Finance Company/OP-3 have no role in causing grievance to complainant as liability to issue bill and to procure registration certificate was on Seller, therefore, complaint against OP-2 and OP-3 stands hereby dismissed.

 

cc no.163 of 2020

17                                  Complainant could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

18                                     Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Commission

Dated : 07.10.2024

           (Param Pal Kaur)                       (Rakesh Kumar Singla)

              Member                            President