Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/33/2016

M.Ramachandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

kapico Motors India (pvt) LTD - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.V.Lakshimipathy, p.Arun kumer

25 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  29.02.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  25.01.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 25^th   DAY OF JANUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.33/2016

 

 

A.M.Ramachandran,

S/o. A.R.Murali Manoharan,

Flat No.205, Block No.A-6, Prince Village-1,

31/33, Elaya Mudali Street,

Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s. Kapico Motors India (Pvt.) Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Old No.197, New No.309, Poonamallee High Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 11.03.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. R.V.Lakshmipathy, P.Arun Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s. P.Arivudainambi &

                                                                    M.P.Mohandass 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to issue either the original RC or second copy to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the 15% depreciation value  for the duplicate copy of the RC book and also compensation for transporting his child to the school by  hiring taxi and also further compensation for loss of earning with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a Marine Engineer he will be on duty for 6 months in the vessel and six months on leave. The complainant purchased Maruthi Swift VDI Car on 27.02.2015 for a consideration of Rs.6,56,758/- after deducting exchange offer for his old car. The car was registered at RTO North East bearing registration No.TN 03-Q-1881. The dealer/opposite party had undertaken to handover the original RC within 45 days from the date of the registration. However, the same was not handed over to the complainant. The complainant experienced very difficult to use the vehicle on road without RC book. The very purpose of the car is to take his child to the school was defeated due to non furnishing of RC book.

          2. The complainant received a call in the month of June 2015 that he has to take up his assignment in the foreign vessel. Hence the complainant informed the opposite party to handover the original RC book earliest, so that he can join his employment. However, the opposite party sent only scan copy of RC book through e-mail dated 10.06.2015. Even though the opposite party assured to handover the original RC book before he leaves Chennai, he did not do the same. The complainant left on Chennai on 14.07.2015 to take up his assignment.

          3. The complainant counsel issued notice on 31.08.2015 to the opposite party to handover the original RC book and the same was received by him on 01.09.2015. Though the complainant left Chennai to take-up his assignment in the foreign vessel, the opposite party sent an e-mail on 11.09.2015 that the signature of the complainant required in form 26 and his physical presence is necessary for getting a second copy of the RC book. Subsequently the opposite party sent  mails on18.09.2015 and 06.10.2015 to the complainant. As the complainant is on vessel he was unable to take any mail. The opposite party offering only a second copy proves that he lost original RC book.

          4. The complainant lost his piece of mind when he learnt that the original R.C book was lost with the opposite party when he contacted his wife over phone. The complainant was forced to prematurely relieve in the last week of December 2015 and thereby foregoes his one month salary. After reaching Chennai informed his availability to the opposite party and requested at least arrange for second copy. The opposite party informed that after consulting legal department will be arranged.  The complainant also has to leave during last week of February 2016.

          5. On 21.01.2016 the opposite party sent his representative including the form 26 to apply for duplicate RC book. On 02.02.2016 the complainant sent a mail to know about the status of the RC book. The complainant was present at the RTO office on 10.02.2016 as required by the opposite party and finally nothing was arranged on the day. On 19.02.2016 the complainant reminded the opposite party for early completion of the work and personally went to the RTO office and no paper was available and hence the complainant suffered with mental agony. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to issue either the original RC or second copy to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the 15% depreciation value for the duplicate copy of the RC book and also compensation for transporting his child to the school by  hiring taxi and also further compensation for prematurely he had returned from his duty with cost of the complaint.

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party admits that the complainant purchased the vehicle from him as a dealer. Due to the nature of the job of the complainant that he could not be contacted over the period of 4 to 6 months, there is a delay in processing the application for getting copy of the RC during the first week of May to last week of May 2016 the complainant and his family members are holidaying for summer and their door was locked and that delayed the processing copy of the RC book.

          7. The opposite party sent a letter to produce the vehicle on or before 01.06.2016. The complainant replied by his letter dated 30.05.2016 that the opposite party knowing full well that the complainant was not available he had contacted during May. The opposite party moved the police to obtain non traceable certificate for loss of registration certificate. As the complainant has not produced the vehicle, the loss of registration certificate could not be persuading to obtain the duplicate copy. The presence of vehicle is mandatory and that was not cooperated by the complaint.

          8. Soon after the arrival of the complainant during December 2015, the opposite party has taken a prudential measure to obtain copy of RC. The delay was only due to the complainant and not by this opposite party. The allegations that the duplicate RC book will lead to 15% depreciation value of the vehicle at the time re-sale is not correct. The fact remains that after signing of form 26, form 16 and pollution certificate etc, way back on 21.01.2016 till 02.06.2016 the vehicle has not been produced. When there is a default on the part of the complainant by not producing the vehicle inspite of through e-mail, what’s-up message and speed post, the complainant cannot fault against this opposite party and hence the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

10. POINT NO :1        

          Admittedly the complainant purchased Maruthi Swift VDI Car from the opposite party/dealer for a sum of Rs.6,56,758/- as per Ex.A1 invoice. The vehicle was registered with RTO North East bearing registration No.TN-03-Q-1881 Ex.A2 is the delivery challan for delivering the vehicle on 04.03.2015. The opposite party agreed to handover registration certificate within 45 days to the complainant. Even after 45 days the RC book was not handed over to the complainant inspite of several demand made by the complainant. The opposite party first time sent Ex.A6 mail on 10.06.2015 enclosing scanned RC copy to the complainant. The complainant demanded for the original RC book and since the same was not given to him, the complainant issued Ex.A4 legal notice dated 31.08.2015 to the opposite party to hand over the original RC book within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and the said notice was received by the opposite party on 01.09.2015 under Ex.A5 acknowledgement.

          11. The complainant purchased a vehicle on 27.02.2015 from the opposite party. The vehicle was registered on 02.03.2015. The opposite party has to collect the registration certificate (RC) from the RTO Office  and  delivered to the complainant within 45 days. However, he had not delivered the RC book to the complainant. The complainant contacted the opposite party through telephone to deliver the original RC book on several occasions and however he had not delivered the same. Hence the complainant issued Ex.A4 legal notice dated 31.08.2015 to deliver the original RC book on receipt of from within 15 days. Thereafter only on 10.06.2015 first time the opposite party sent scanned copy of RC through Ex.A6 mail.

          12. After registering the vehicle on 04.03.2015 nearly after three months only the opposite party sent the scanned RC copy to the complainant. The opposite party sent the scanned RC copy proves that the he had received the original RC book from the RTO authorities. Having received the complainant’s vehicle original RC from RTO office, the opposite party owes a duty to deliver the same to the complainant. However, the opposite party fails to deliver the original RC to the complainant is deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

          13. The opposite party sent Ex.A7 mail to the complainant on 11.09.2015 requiring the complainant to furnish his signed form 26 and other papers in order to get the second copy of the RC book. The complainant informed the opposite party that he received a call from his employer from June 2015 and he had to leave for his employment accordingly he left on 14.07.2015. Till he leaves the opposite party has not chosen to get the signature of the complainant in form 26 proves the deficiency of the opposite party.

14. During the course of his employment, the complainant learnt that through his wife, when he contacted her over phone that the opposite party requires his signature in form-26. Hence  he was forced to prematurely relieved in the last week of  December 2015 and thereby he had forgone his one month salary. Even after that complainant wrote Ex.A11 mail dated 07.01.2016 and Ex.A12, Ex.A13 e-mails dated 02.02.2016 and 10.02.2016 about his applying duplicate RC book. Thereafter, as instructed by the opposite party, the complainant was waiting at the RTO office on 10.02.2016 and no one from the opposite party turned up and on 19.02.16 also when the complainant went to the RTO office. However, even then the opposite party had not arranged the duplicate RC book of the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

          15. The opposite party would contend that the complainant sought in the first relief to arrange either the original RC book or second copy and the second copy was arranged and the same was given to the complainant during the pendency of the proceedings and the copy of the second copy is marked as Ex.B7 and therefore in that respect the opposite party cannot be faulted. The Ex.B7 duplicate RC was signed by the RTO on 24.03.2017. This Consumer complaint was filed in this Forum on 29.02.2016. Nearly after one year of filing of this complaint only the complainant arranged this Ex.B7 duplicate copy. Even before that when the complainant demanded to arrange for the duplicate copy, the opposite party arranged duplicate copy with 752 days long delay and the scanned copy after 100 days proves that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in providing RC book to the complainant. Hence the contention raised by the opposite party in this regard is rejected and we hold that the opposite party committed deficiency in service.

16. POINT NO:2

          As the opposite party committed deficiency in service and furnished duplicate RC book after 752 days and there was no explanation what was happened to the original RC book and due to non furnishing of RC book, the complainant experienced difficult and harassment in plying the vehicle on the road without RC, certainly caused mental agony to him is accepted. Further the complainant was forced to pre-maturely relieved from his duty during December 2015 and even after return the opposite party had not arranged RC book original or duplicate copy. Due to pre-mature relief sustained loss of one month earning to the complainant. Therefore it would be appropriate for loss of earnings and mental agony we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

          17. The complainant also claimed that due to duplicate RC his vehicle value was depreciated at 15%. However, the opposite party would reply that there is no such depreciation would occur and further they are ready to maintain the vehicle for three years as per Ex.B8 in respect of the maintenance of vehicle sent only during the pendency of the case shows that only escape from the liability such on offer was made by the  opposite party. A vehicle has not having the original RC certainly the value of the vehicle would be depreciated is accepted. Hence for the same it would to appropriate to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. The complainant claim compensation for hiring of taxes for sending his child to school and also for sending his family on pilgrimage trips. No taxi receipt was produced by the complainant to establish that they have engaged taxi for the above said purposes.  Hence we hold that the complainant has not proved the same and he is not entitled for any compensation in this regard. However, we order that the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.   

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-  (Rupees fifty  thousand  only) towards compensation for the depreciation value of the vehicle and also to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the other reliefs is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 25^th  day of January 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 27.02.2015                   Invoice No.VSL 14002091 for Rs.6,56,758/-

                                                   issued by opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 04.03.2015                   Delivery challan issued by opposite party

Ex.A3 dated 04.03.2015                   Vehicle registration process and undertaking

                                                   issued by opposite party  

Ex.A4 dated 31.08.2015                   Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel

Ex.A5 dated 01.09.2015                   Acknowledgement card signed by the opposite

                                                   party for the legal notice

Ex.A6 dated 10.06.2015                   E-mail of the opposite party sending scanned copy

                                                   of the RC book

Ex.A7 dated 11.09.2015                   e_ mail of the opposite party

Ex.A8 dated 18.09.2015                   e_ mail of the opposite party

Ex.A9 dated 06.10.2015                   e_ mail of the opposite party

Ex.A10 dated 30.12.2015                 e_ mail of the complainant

Ex.A11 dated 07.01.2016                 e_ mail of the complainant

Ex.A12 dated 02.02.2016                 e_ mail of the complainant

Ex.A13 dated 10.02.2016                 e_ mail of the complainant

Ex.A14 dated 10.02.2016                 e_ mail of the opposite party

Ex.A15 dated 15.02.2016                 e_ mail of the complainant

Ex.A16 dated 15.02.2016                 e_ mail of the opposite party

Ex.A17 dated 19.02.2016                 e_ mail of the complainant

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 11.09.2015                   e-mail of the opposite party

Ex.B2 dated 18.09.2015                   e-mail of the opposite party

Ex.B3 dated 06.10.2015                   e-mail of the opposite party

Ex.B4 dated 10.02.2016                   e-mail of the complainant

Ex.B5 dated 25.05.2016                   Letter of the opposite party

Ex.B6 dated 02.02.2016                   e-mail of the complainant

Ex.B7 dated 24.03.2017                   Form of  certificate of registration

Ex.B8 dated  23.08.2017                  KAPICO letter

Ex.B9 dated 23.08.2017                   Mail letter

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT