| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.328 of 15-12-2021 Decided on : 28-02-2024 Harnek Singh aged about 70 years S/o Maghar Singh R/o Village Jodhpur Pakhar Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, Punjab. ........Complainant Versus Kapoor Auto Agencies O/o Rori Road, Talwandi Sabo, through its Managing Director named as Amit Kapoor Now O/o Punjab Pradesh Beopar Mandal C/o Kapoor Sons, Afeem Wali Gali, Post Office Bazaar, Bathinda. Sh.Amit Kapoor (Kapoor Auto Agency) Now O/o Punjab Pradesh Beopar Mandal C/o Kapoor Sons, Afeem Wali Gali, Post office Bazaar, Bathinda. Hero MotoCorp Limited O/o The Grand Plaza, Plot No.2, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj- Phase-II, New Delhi-110070, through its Managing Director.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Smt. Priti Malhotra, President Smt. Sharda Attri, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh.Varun Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Opposite party No.1 deleted. Opposite party No.2 ex-parte. Sh.G.S Jaura, Advocate for opposite party No.3. ORDER Priti Malhotra, President The complainant Harnek Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Kapoor Auto Agencies and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one bike i.e Hero HF Deluxe Self bearing engine No.09333 and Ch. No.02600 for Rs.44,995/- on 7.9.2016 from opposite parties and paid Rs.6000/- for RC/Insurance/Acc. i.e total Rs.51000/- for the the services and product. It is alleged that till date, opposite parties have not issued R.C of the bike to the complainant. The complainant several times visited the premises of opposite parties, but they had always given him another date. He also wrote many letters to opposite parties, but to no effect. It is further alleged that subsequently, opposite parties have shut their showroom from Talwandi Sabo and shifted at Bathinda. Even the complainant has also visited many times to opposite parties premises at Bathinda, but to no effect. No single efforts have been done from the side of opposite parties for the R.C/insurance/Acc. of the bike. Due to non-issuance of R.C/Insurance/Acc of the bike, the complainant is not able to ride his bike over the roads freely due to afraid of challan by the traffic police as it is totally illegal to run bike without the R.C/Insurance/Acc.. Due to non issuance of R.C, the insurance of the vehicle is also not done by the insurance companies. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to issue him R.C., Insurance/Acc. and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on the account of harassment, mental and physical agony, losses suffered due to skip of daily work and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant on 13.4.2022, the name of opposite party No.1 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and pleaded that opposite party No.1 has no contractual relationship with it at any given point in time. Opposite party No.1 had no agreement with opposite party No.3 at any point of time. Opposite party No.3 is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of two-wheelers in India. As per its business model, it sells its products through its authorized dealers to its customer. It is further pleaded that any transaction that takes place between the customers and the authorized dealers, opposite party No.3 has no role to play in it whatsoever. Similarly, in this case, opposite party No.3 has played no role in dealing with the complainant. It is not within the knowledge of opposite party No.3 that whether the vehicle was sold by opposite party No.1 or some other entity. In either case, opposite party No.3 has no role to play in the registration process of the vehicle bought by the customer. opposite party No.3 does not engage in any such activity or charges any fee for the same. If any such transaction took place, it must have been between the complainant and opposite party No.1. It is for opposite party No.1 to explain the factual position to defend the allegations that has been alleged by the complainant as the allegations raised in the complaint are solely against opposite party No.1. The complainant has unnecessarily impleaded opposite party No.3 in the array of parties. As such, the complaint deserves to be dismissed qua opposite party No.3 or in the alternative, opposite party No.3 is to be discharged from the complaint by this Commission. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.1 are separate legal entities and they cannot be held liable for the acts of each other. Opposite party No.3 never adopted any unfair trade practice and there is no deficiency in services on its part. As per the complaint, the vehicle was purchased on 7.9.2016 and this complaint was filed on 15.12.2021. The registration of the vehicle has to be completed within one month from the date of purchase of the vehicle. As such, the cause-of-action, if any, arose in the month of October 2016. The complainant has not bothered to approach this Commission for almost 5 years. Such a long delay only shows the malafide intentions of the complainant. The Complainant has not even filed an application for condonation of delay to get the delay condoned. He is trying to abuse the process of law to justify his own ill-intentions. As such, this Complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has filed beyond the limitation period. In further written version, opposite parties have reproduced Section 69 and quoted some cases law, reference of which are not necessary at this stage. It is also pleaded that the complaint is misconceived and untenable both on the facts and in law and deserves to be dismissed in limine by this Commission qua opposite party No.3. The Complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has intentionally and deliberately suppressed material facts. As such, he is not entitled to any relief much less equitable relief from this Commission. The Complainant has not filed any acceptable evidence in the complaint or in support of the cause-of-action made out qua opposite party No.3. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the head office of opposite party No.3 is situated at New Delhi, hence the present matter ought to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is based on baseless submissions qua opposite party No.3. On merits, opposite party No.3 has denied and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 1.12.2021, (Ex.C1) and documents, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C5). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sidhharth Tewari dated 2.11.2023 (Ex.OP1/1) and close the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant has purchased one bike for Rs.44,995/- on 7.9.2016 vide Ex.C2 from opposite party No.2 and paid Rs.6000/- for RC/Insurance/Acc., (Page No.2 of Challan, (Ex.C3) proves this fact). As per complainant, Despite of payment of receipt, opposite party No.2 has neither issued any R.C nor given any insurance policy to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 has not come forward before this Commission to contest the complaint of the complaint. Therefore, the averment made in the complaint goes unrebutted and unchallenged, which are duly assisted with sworn affidavit of the complainant. As opposite party No.2 has already charged amount from the complainant on account of R.C, therefore, it is liable to get R.C of the vehicle of the complainant from R.T.O office issued. In view of what has been discussed above, present complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 is directed to get R.C of the vehicle from R.T.O office issued. The complainant will fullfil all the formalities for getting R.C issued. The compliance of this order be made within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 28-02-2024 - (Priti Malhotra)
President (Sharda Attri) Member
| |
