MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the OP No.4 against order dated 3.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 649 of 2009.

2.            Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Yamaha F25 Motor bike from OP No.2. The complainant was residing at Chandigarh and he went for registration of the above said bike on 28.4.2009 from Registering and Licencing Authority, Hockey Stadium, Sector 42, Chandigarh where he came to know that the model approval of the above said bike was pending and he was guided to go to Sector 17, Head Office. On 29.4.2009 the complainant went to Registering and Licencing Authority, Sector 17, Chandigarh and he was told that they have no related documents in this regard. The complainant called Yamaha Customer Care number and also approached the dealer but no satisfactory reply was received from their side. The complainant submitted that if the above said vehicle was not approved by Chandigarh Licencing Authority why did they start to sell it in Chandigarh without approval. It was submitted that the complainant could not ply his vehicle because the temporary number had expired. The complainant visited Yamaha Showroom, Sector 17, Chandigarh and also called the Yamaha company several times but till date matter is not solved. The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OP No.1 and admitted that the complainant purchased the Yamaha FZS motor bike from OP No.2 but the same motor bike was earlier known as FZ16. Due to minor decorative changes and some cosmetic changes, the OP No.1 vide letter dated 17.2.2009 sought clarification from International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT) as to whether additional certification was required and the ICAT vide letter dated 5.3.2009 clarified that there was no need for additional certification upon which vide letter dated 22.6.2009 the State Transport Authority (STA), UT, Chandigarh accorded approval. It was pleaded that the delay, if any, was on the part of STA, UT, Chandigarh in granting approval. It was further pleaded that OP No.2 even offered to extend the duration of the temporary registration number of the above said vehicle but the complainant refused. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         Reply was filed by OP No.2 and admitted the purchase of the above said motor bike by the complainant from it on 29.3.2009. It was submitted that the complainant himself admitted that he was resident of Chandigarh and due to this, the complainant easily purchase the motor bike through local dealer but he preferred to purchase motor bike from OP No.2. It was denied that the vehicle was not approved from Chandigarh Licencing Authority. The Registering Authority was ready to get the vehicle registered but the complainant was not ready to get the vehicle registered and it was submitted by OP No.2 that the answering OP had sold more than 50-60 motor bikes till date and all were registered without any problem. It was further pleaded that the complainant filed the present complaint only just to escape the payment of late registration charges as he could not register the vehicle within time and no evidence has been placed on record in order to suggest that the complainant ever approached the Registering Authority for the registration of his vehicle and the Registering Authority refused to register the vehicle. The complainant himself admitted that he purchased the motor bike on 29.3.2009 and he went to the Registering Authority on 29.4.2009 which clearly proves that the complainant himself was not interested in getting the vehicle registered. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.         Reply was filed by OP No.3 and submitted that the motor cycle make Yamaha FZS was purchased by the complainant on 29.3.2009 from OP No.2. It was submitted that on the personal visit of the complainant, he was informed that the approval of the said model had not been received by RLA from the office of STA, Chandigarh and as soon as the same is received, his vehicle would be registered on the same day. It was further submitted that whenever any new model is launched by the company its approval is to be taken by the dealer or the manufacturer through STA from Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration after completing the formalities along with application and there was no delay on the part of answering OP. It was further submitted that the complainant submitted his documents for registration on 26.6.2009 and the registration certificate bearing No.CH-04-J-5293 was issued to the complainant on 2.7.2009. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and prayed that the complaint qua OP No.3 may kindly be dismissed.

6.         Reply was filed by OP No.4 and submitted that M/s Em Pee motors (Auto Division) Authorised dealers of Yamaha Motor Cycles, SCO No.2907-08 Sector 22-C, Chandigarh had applied in the State Transport Authority for the approval of model of Yamaha-FZS on 28.4.2009 and the above said dealer was directed to produce the vehicle physically before the Board of Inspection on 19.5.2009 along with the documents consisting of approval of other neighbouring states in respect of the said vehicle. The vehicle was produced by the said firm before the Board of Inspection on 19.5.2009 but the approval of the other neighboring states was not supplied by the said firm, instead it was supplied on 9.6.2009 in the shape of RC and the case was sent for approval to the Home Secretary on 17.6.2009 which was received back on 18.6.2009. On 22.6.2009 the approval of model was conveyed to the said firm i.e. Em Pee Motors vide orders No.STA/2009/2496-2499 dated 22.6.2009 and to Registering and Licencing Authority, UT, Chandigarh on 22.6.2009 which was received by them on 23.6.2009. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there was no delay on its part.

6.         The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

7.         The learned District Forum allowed the complaint against OPs No.3 and 4 i.e. Registering Authority, Chandigarh and State Transport Authority, Chandigarh and directed them to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally along with litigation cost of Rs.1100/-, within 30 days failing which they would be liable to pay the said amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. since the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 7.5.2009 till its actual payment to the complainant.  

8.            Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OP No.4.  Ms.Pratima Arora, ADA has appeared on behalf of appellant and Sh.Raj Karan, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 as none has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1, 3 and 4.

9.         In appeal, it was contended by the appellant/OP No.4 that when after purchasing a Yamaha F25 Motor bike from respondent No.3/OP No.2, the complainant went for respondent No.4 i.e. Registering and Licencing Authority, Chandigarh on 28.4.2009 then the complainant was informed that approval of this model is still pending and suggested to contact at the Head Office of Registering and Licencing Authority, Sector 17, Chandigarh where the complainant came to know that this office did not have received any documents regarding the approval of this model. Thereafter the complainant as alleged contacted the local dealer of Yamaha bike i.e. respondent No.3, who did not give any satisfactory response and due to this reason, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned District Forum against the appellant as well as respondents No.2 to 4.

10.       After received a notice from the learned District Forum, the learned counsel for the appellant appeared and filed a detailed written reply and finally the learned District Forum on 3.12.2009 passed an order by holding OPs No.3 and 4 i.e. Registering & Licencing Authority, UT, Chandigarh and State Transport Authority, Chandigarh are deficient in providing services to the complainant and directing to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally along with the litigation costs of Rs.1100/- , within 30 days. It was further contended that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is not legally sustainable in the eyes of law and is based on surmises and conjectures and is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

11.       It was contended that from the complaint, it is apparent that all the allegations made by the complainant were entirely against the manufacturer, dealer and the Registering and Licencing Authority, UT, Chandigarh and no allegation/submission was made against the appellant/OP No.4.  Moreover, the State Transport Authority, Chandigarh has been formulated by the Chandigarh Administration in accordance with the provision of Section 68 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in discharge of its constitutional liabilities. Thus the Consumer Courts do not have a power to adjudicate upon a matter when a authority being discharging the constitutional obligation of the State.

12.       It was contended that the above said motor bike was earlier known as FZ16 and for which the approval of State Transport Authority, UT, Chandigarh under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 for Construction Equipment and Maintenance of Motor Vehicles as per law under Section 111 of Motor Vehicle Act and Rule 130 of Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules 1990, the approval from the State Transport Authority, UT, Chandigarh is must for the reason that any new vehicle before plying on the road could be thoroughly inspected by the State Transport Authority for the safety of the public at large. Had the approval was not necessary/required, the dealer would not have applied for the same. The application for approval submitted by the dealer itself authenticate the procedure adopted by the appellant is as per law. It was further submitted that in case the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum is accepted as such, it would create chaos as the Registering Authority will not be informed about the new vehicle by the dealers and in that situation the authority will be helpless in securing the safety for the users of vehicles. It was specifically stated that neither the power of State Transport Authority to grant the approval of the new model of vehicles was under challenge nor any relief in this regard was claimed by the respondent No.1/complainant. It is worth mentioning here that statutory instructions/circulars are legal binding force until and unless they are in contravention of rules, which is not the situation in the presence case as the said letter of approval has been issued by the Home Secretary, who is the Chairman of State Transport Authority and the same has been issued as per Rule 130 of the Chandigarh Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

13.       It was also submitted that the letter issued by the ICAT was brought to the knowledge of automobiles only in April, 2009 by the dealer and the approval was granted by the appellant/OP No.4 on 22.6.2009 after completing its procedure. Thus there is no delay on the part of appellant/OP No.4. It is pertinent to mention here that the procedure of prior approval for the new vehicle is not being adopted by the UT only, it is being adopted by other states also. Even if, some vehicles gets approval of ICAT or any other such agencies, the same is still requested to get approval of the state where it is going to be ply on the road. Such a procedure cannot be held to be faulty because the same is adopted to ensure safety of the users of vehicles as the same covers up the situation of change/modification/alteration by the manufacturer in the model/specification of vehicle after getting the same approved from ICAT. Moreover, the State Government as per Rule 111 of Motor Vehicle Rules 1988 and as per Section 130 of Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, the State Transport Authority can make such rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles with respect to all matter with the safety of the public. Moreover this procedure was not adopted for the vehicle purchased by the complainant but is same for every resident of Chandigarh and the same has never been objected to any of the resident or any of the dealer of the city.  Thus, this procedure, which is adopted since long cannot be declared illegal by any court. 

14.       It is submitted that law is well settled that the courts cannot adjudicate upon the matter which are not even the part of pleadings before them and the matters should not be disposed of on the ground, which are not even raised by the parties in their pleadings and the courts can’t grant relief which is not claimed by the parties.

15.       It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP No.4. In the interest of justice, the order passed by the learned District Forum may kindly be set aside, the appeal may kindly be allowed and the complaint qua the appellant/OP No.4 may kindly be dismissed.

16.       After hearing Ms.Pratima Arora, ADA on behalf of appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 the main issue for consideration before us is whether approval from State Transport Authority, Chandigarh is required.

17.       As per the provision of Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the STA, Chandigarh has been formulated by the Chandigarh Administration for discharge of its constitutional liabilities. As per rule 111 of Motor Vehicles Act and as per Section 130 of Chandigarh Motor Vehicle Rules 1990, the STA can make such rules, regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of Motor Vehicles Act with respect to all matters for the safety of the public. Taking this fact into consideration, we are of the view that approval from State Transport Authority, UT, Chandigarh is necessary so that any new vehicle before plying on road could be thoroughly inspected by the STA for the safety of the public at large.  It is pertinent to mention here that before registration of any vehicle, the model of the same needs to be approved by the concerned STA under the jurisdiction of which the said model is to be sold by the dealer concerned. This is a well established procedure and the same is adopted by the STA, Chandigarh and other such authorities of the States. Thus such a procedure cannot be held faulty as the same is adopted to ensure safety of the users of the vehicle as well as safety for the public at large and the same covers up the situation of change/modification/alteration by the manufacturer in the model/specification of vehicle after getting the same approval from ICAT. It is worth mentioning that in the present case neither the power of STA to grant approval to the new models of vehicles was under challenge nor any relief in this regard was claimed by the complainant. Moreover the relief sought by the complainant in the complaint was against manufacturer, dealer and the Registering and Licencing Authority as there was no allegation in the complaint against the appellant/OP No.4. The law is already settled on this point that any court cannot grant any relief beyond the pleadings. Moreover by giving prior approval to the models of the new vehicles, the STA is doing its statutory duty. In the present case as the dealer applied for approval on 28.4.2009 after going through the procedure, the STA has given approval without any delay. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP No.4. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the opinion the learned District Forum has erred in holding that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP No.4 and OP No.3 i.e. Registering and Licencing Authority, Chandigarh and by directing to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-    jointly and severally along with litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-. Therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set aside and the penalty imposed as a compensation is liable to be quashed.

18.       In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by OP No.4 is here by allowed, the order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

19.       Copies of this order             be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.                                                                           

14^th December, 2010.