Per Mr.H.K.Bhaise, Hon’ble Member

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he visited showroom of O.P.No.2 on 25^th February, 2011 to buy two wheeler vehicle DURO.  The O.P.No.1 is the Manufacturer of two wheeler and the O.P.No.2 is the Dealer.  Salesman Mr.Amit Singh entertained the complainant.  He quoted price of Rs.48,200/- i.e. ex showroom price Rs.42,920/-, R.T.O. charges Rs.4,142/- and Insurance Charges Rs.1,138/-.  Mr.Amit Singh told that he will issue receipt of payment except the amount of Rs.4,142/- for R.T.O. Registration Charges.  Vehicle will be delivered within seven days from the date of payment.  He told that actual R.T.O. charges are Rs.3,472/- and rest of the amount Rs.670/- was the bribe to be paid to the R.T.O. officers.  He agreed to arrange for the receipt of Rs.3,472/- only.  Accordingly, the complainant issued cheque dated 25^th February, 2011 for Rs.46,392/- i.e. price Rs.42.920/- and R.T.O. Charges Rs.3,472/-.  Receipt No.411 dated 25^th February, 2011 was issued.  Mr.Amit Singh issued letter dated 25^th February, 2011 stating Engine No. and Chasis No. for insurance policy purpose.  The complainant himself purchased insurance policy from Reliance General Insurance Company Limited for the DURO based on the said letter. The cheque issued by the complainant was cleared on 28^th February, 2011. There was no delivery of DURO till 5^th March, 2011. There was also no communication from the O.P.No.2 therefore the complainant sent email on 5^th March, 2011 making enquiry about the status of his vehicle.  On 8^th March, 2011, Mr.Nitish informed on email that they had already forwarded the papers to the R.T.O. but the R.T.O. wants physical inspection of the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant was not informed about the alleged inspection by the R.T.O.  On 10^th March, 2011, the complainant had telephonic conversation with the said Mr.Amit Singh. On 11^th March, 2011, Mr.Nitish sent email informing that they don’t forward the papers to the R.T.O unless they received the full payment. The complainant was told that their Agent could not give free service of registration with the R.T.O. It is the lawful duty of the Dealer to get the registration done and the Dealer can not demand extra amount from the purchaser. Mr.Nitish informed on 11^th March, 2011 that registration was done by the R.T.O. on 11^th March, 2011 itself and the Registration No. is MH-01-AW-5551. On 12^th March, 2011, the complainant requested Mr.Nitish to give delivery quickly.  Again, the complainant contacted Mr.Nitish on 24^th March, 2011 requesting to deliver the vehicle. The complainant sent last email on 25^th March, 2011 informing the O.P.No.2 that if they don’t deliver the vehicle before next evening he was not interested in buying the DURO and he would request to refund the money.  Within one and half hour the complainant received a call at his residence informing the wife of complainant that vehicle was ready and to take delivery.  Accordingly, the complainant went to take delivery of the vehicle.  On verifying the Odometer Reading it was showing 0003 K.M. In Owner’s Manual some pages were missing.  R.T.O. receipt for Rs.70/- and Rs.2,671/- was handed over. The complainant was shocked to see that Engine No. and Chasis No. were different from the earlier numbers given on 25^th February, 2011.  The O.P.No.2 did not inform about the changes in Engine and Chasis Number.  On the request of the complainant Mr.Nitish issued letter dated 25^th March, 2011 in the name of Insurance Company stating the change in Engine Number and Chasis Number. ‘Form 20’, battery warranty was not given.  The O.P.No.2 collected excess amount of Rs.731/- illegally from the complainant.  When the complainant drove the vehicle, he noticed several defects in the vehicle.  On next day, the complainant sent email to the O.P.No.2 informing the discrepancies in the performance of the vehicle to do the needful but there was no response. The complainant tried to meet the Vice President of O.P.No.1 Mr.Devendra Shinde on 18^th April, 2011 but he could not meet as he was busy in other meetings.  The complainant sent email to Mr.Shinde on 19^th April, 2011 informing mal practices of the O.P.No.2.  On 23^rd April, 2011, Mr.Shinde assured the complainant to take action against the O.P.No.2.  With the active co-operation of Mr.Shinde and his team the defects in the vehicle were properly looked from time to time but no action was taken against the O.P.No.2. On 16^th May, 2011, the O.P.No.2 informed that Smart Card of DURO had been received from R.T.O. and asked the complainant to collect it. He requested to send it by post or courier but the O.P.No.2 refused. Mr.Shinde was kind enough to send Smart Card to the complainant by courier. As different engine and chasis numbers were given, the complainant wrote letter to the insurance company and changed the numbers.

2)                As the excess amount of Rs.731/- was collected from the complainant, he is entitled to recover it.  The complainant is also entitled for compensation for mental and physical harassment and for delay in R.T.O. Registration and delay in delivery.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for the recovery of Rs.731/- from the O.P.no.2 with interest.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the O.P.No.2 for mental and physical harassment  and for inconvenience suffered by the complainant.  He has claimed cost of this litigation Rs.10,000/-.  He has claimed token compensation of Rs.1/- from the O.P.No.1 as he failed to redress the grievances of the complainant against the O.P.No.2.  He has also prayed to direct the O.P.No.2 to stop unfair trade practice.

3)                The O.P.No.1 remained absent though duly served therefore the matter is proceeded exparte against the O.P.No.1. 

4)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement.  It is admitted that the complainant booked vehicle DURO on 25^th February, 2011 after getting quotation of Rs.48,200/-. The complainant paid Rs.46,392/- instead of Rs.48,200/- and took the delivery on 25^th March, 2011 by giving false promise and assurance that he will pay balance Rs.568/- within two/three days.  The complainant has not paid Rs.568/-. The O.P.No.2 winded up its business with the O.P.No.1 from 7^th November, 2012.  The complainant had not issued demand notice before filing this complaint.  The complainant is habitual complainer and wants to harass the O.P.No.2.  It is denied that the O.P.No.2 has recovered excess amount from the complainant.  The complainant was informed that the delivery will take two months and the complainant agreed.  It is denied that the O.P.No.2 did not deliver the vehicle deliberately.  The defects in the vehicle are denied.  The email dated 25^th March, 2011 shows that the complainant was very much satisfied and the vehicle was delivered on 25^th March, 2011.  There was no grievance. The present complaint is filed after two years with malafide intention to extract the money.   The complainant is rare customer who took Engine Number and Chasis Number in advance.  It shows his pre planned tactics to harass the opponent.  The Forum should not encourage such frivolous complaint and it be dismissed with compensatory cost. 

5)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

6)  As to Point No.1& 2  :-  There is no dispute that the complainant booked the vehicle with the O.P.No.2 and paid amount of Rs.46,392/- by cheque.  The O.P.No.2 issued receipt dated 25^th February, 2011.  The cheque was cleared on 28^th February, 2011.  The O.P.No.2 had issued Tax Invoice for Rs.42,920/-.  R.T.O. receipts are for Rs.2,671/- and Rs.70/- respectively.  Thus, there are only three receipts given to the complainant for total amount of Rs.45,661/-.  The complainant paid Rs.46,392/- i.e. excess amount of Rs.731/-.  It was responsibility of the O.P.No.2 to give details of the amount received from the complainant. He has given details of amount Rs.45,661/- only and failed to give explanation for balance amount of Rs.731/-.  The O.P.No.2 has no right to recover the excess amount from the purchaser i.e. the complainant. Therefore, the O.P.No.2 is responsible to refund the amount of Rs.731/- to the complainant. 

7)                The complainant has stated about the several defects in the vehicle but he has not produced the expert opinion on record.  In para 51 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that he put the grievances with Mr.Devendra Shinde, Vice President of O.P.No.1 and the defects in the DURO were properly looked from time to time.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and inconvenience suffered by him. The evidence on record show that there was delay in R.T.O. registration.  As per Rule, the Dealer has to get the R.T.O. registration done.  The O.P.No.2 received the payment but there was delay in registration thereby the complainant suffered mental harassment. The delivery is also late. Thereby also the complainant suffered inconvenience. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the compensation from the O.P.No.2.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  We think, it is a excess claim. The complainant has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344 and judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No.502 of 2011 dated 5^th March, 2012.  In these judgments, guidelines are given to determine the compensation.  After going through these judgments, we think compensation of Rs.10,000/- will be the reasonable compensation.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled for cost of proceeding Rs.5,000/-. 

8)                During course of argument, the learned advocate for the O.P.No.2 has submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation. The vehicle was delivered on 25^th March, 2011 and the complaint is filed on 5^th March, 2013 i.e. within two years from the date of delivery. Therefore, the complaint is within limitation.  In the written statement, the O.P.No.2 has stated that the complainant failed to pay Rs.568/- as agreed. The O.P.No.2 has not given the details of demand.  On the other hand, evidence on record show that the O.P.No.2 has recovered excess amount of Rs.731/-. 

9)                The complainant has also claimed token compensation of Rs.1/- from the O.P.No.1 for not taking action against the O.P.No.2.  In para 51 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that Mr.Devendra Shinde, Vice President of O.P.No.1 and his team properly looked after his grievances. In view of this submission, we do not think it proper to give direction to the O.P.No.1 for payment of compensation merely because he failed to take action against the O.P.No.2. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The O.P.No.2 is directed to refund of Rs.731/- (Rs.Seven Hundred Thirty One Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 5^th March, 2013 till realization.
3. The O.P.No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.
4. The O.P.No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of this proceeding.
5. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
6. The complaint as against the O.P.No.1 stands dismissed.
7. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced

Dated 26^th June, 2014