Date of filing : 30.08.2019 

                                                                              Date of order: 27.10.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE

PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L.     PRESIDENT

                THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L.                    MEMBER – I

        SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A.,     MEMBER-II

 THURSDAY THE  27TH  DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINANT NO. 22/2019

Mr. Prabhu,

S/o. Selvaraj,

No.33/4, Madha Koil Street,

Ponnai, Ranipet,

Walaja Taluk, 

Ranipet District.                        …Complainant

-Vs-

1. Vikram Motors,

    Rep. By its Managing Director/

    Dealer of Yamaha Motors India Ltd.,

    Mr. Vikramadhitan,

    No.48, Krishnagiri Trunk Road,

    Ranipet – 632 401.

2. Mr. Vikramadhitan,

    Managing Director of Vikram Motors/

    Dealer of Yamaha Motors India Ltd.,

    Residing at No.304, New Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

    Rayakottai Road, Krishnagiri – 635 001. 

3. The Managing Director,

    Yamaha Motors India Ltd.,

    A-3, Ind-Area-Noida,

    Dadri Road, Gautam Budh Nagar,

    Uttarpradesh, India – 201 306.

4. The Managing Director,

    Bussan Auto Finance India Pvt. Ltd.,

    BAF India,

    12th Floor Jebara House, Door No.327,

    Annasalai, Tenampet, Chennai – 600 006.                …Opposite Parties

Counsel for complainant  :    Nazirin Begam

First opposite party          :     Set exparte  on 12.12.2019

Second opposite party     :     Set exparte  on 17.10.2019

Counsel for third opposite party    :  Thiru. R. Ravichandran

Counsel for fourth opposite party  :  Thiru. P. Elwin wilson

ORDER

THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT

    This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.   The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.71,689/- being Rs.64,143/- towards the cost of the vehicle and remaining for its registration, tax and insurance or to replace the vehicle of same cost registration, insurance and tax paid and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- the   damages  for mental agony, monetary loss  and to pay the balance dues to the fourth opposite party with future interest and cost if any and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- cost of  this complaint.  

1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:

    The complainant purchased a Yamaha BS-3 Two wheeler on 03.02.2017 for paying a total sum of Rs.Rs.71,689/-, on the same day made up of Rs.64,143/- the cost of the vehicle and the balance Rs.7,546/- towards the charges of registration, insurance of the vehicle and tax to be paid for the alleged vehicle, which include registration charges and insurance for the vehicle and tax. They had received the said amount of Rs.7,546/-.  After purchase, the second opposite party delivered the said vehicle on 03.02.2017 to the complainant and on the same day assuring that the registration, tax and insurance of the vehicle would be processed  and completed within a week.  They got signatures in several blank and printed papers to send for registration and to pay insurance and tax.  After a week when the complainant  approached first and second opposite parties they had requested for time and said that the entire procedures were under process.   But shock of complainant, after few days he was handed  over with a General health insurance policy for him and for his family with Cholamandalam Insurance Co., in the same of Bussan Auto Finance India Pvt. Ltd., in which the complainant never opted for and same was done against wish of the complainant.   After this the complainant who was suspicious about the registration and tax of vehicle and who was unable to take the vehicle outside to ply on road.  The complainant contacted second and third opposite parties on several times in person and through mails and messages.  But every time complainant received  evasive reply, inspite of all these, though the complainant  had kept the vehicle without plying in on road he was regular in payment of his loan amount without default till 26.03.2019.     Thereafter, he came to know that there was ban on registration of BS-3 types of vehicle from 1st April 2017 as he made enquiry at RTO office which was suppressed by all the opposite parties till then, when confronted with second and third  opposite parties for their failure to register and insure and pay tax to the vehicle when they had sufficient time from 03.02.2017.  They had again given false assurance to do it at the earliest till June 2019. But the complainant was sincere in his loan payment as he felt that his vehicle. would be registered and insured with tax paid.  Moreover fourth opposite party colluded with the second and third opposite parties and have issued a notice with false allegations on 30.06.2019 for the recall of balance and seizure of the two wheeler if the dues are not paid. Knowing fully well that the prevalent ban on the registration of the said BS III vehicle.   The false allegations in the notice are denied, by way of reply notice dated 15.07.2019.  Denying the allegations of notice and the outstanding due is only Rs.20,833.80/-  with interest the second and fourth opposite parties have defrauded jointly by suppressing the material facts  about the defective  vehicle which is  built against the norms of the pollution control board and have sold to him failed to comply.  The second and fourth opposite parties are alone liable to pay the balance dues if any and to refund the amount already paid for their unfair trade practice and to replace him a new vehicle of same price with registration, tax and insurance paid and to pay the damages of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental agony unable to ply the vehicle on road by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.    On receipt of this complaint this commission issued notice to the opposite parties except third and fourth opposite parties all other opposite parties remained called absent  Set exparte.

3. The written version of third opposite party is as follows:

    The third opposite party denies the entire allegations and averments set out in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted by the third opposite party herein put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature as against the third opposite party.  Without prejudice to the claim of third opposite party made hereunder it is submitted that the above complaint is time barred one and it has not been filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action arises as per section 24-A of the Act. The third opposite party is not selling its vehicles to any individual customer.  The vehicles are being sold to the individual customer through a well net work of dealers spread across the length and breadth of India.   The Dealer Sales Agreement entered into between the third opposite party and its dealers governs the relationship between them.   The complainant has narrated the purchase of vehicles and availing loan therefore the third opposite party has no role or comment on these averments and allegations.  It is absolutely false to state that he contacted the third opposite party in person and mails with regard to registration of vehicle which he purchased.  As stated supra the third opposite party has no role to play in selling and registration of vehicles and it is the duty of the dealers to take responsibility of registering the vehicle.   With regard to the allegations and averments made in complaint this opposite party is not aware of the nature of insurance which he was granted by the fourth and this opposite party is not concerned with the same.  That defective vehicle was sold to the complainant and the allegation of the complainant is vague and without mentioning any particular complaints or defects in vehicle.   On receipt of email from this complainant, this opposite party has instructed the first opposite party to get register the complainant’s vehicle and it is not out of place to mention that the dealer is the responsible to get register the vehicle.   The BS-III vehicles cannot be registered from 01.04.2017.  Even assuming so, according to the complainant the vehicle was sold by first opposite party to complainant on 03.02.2017 and it could be registered well within the alleged cut of date and it is the sole responsibility of the first and second opposite parties, for non registration of vehicle.  The manufacturer cannot be found fault for non registration of vehicle.  This opposite party put the complainant to prove the service of notice as alleged by him.  This opposite party is no way connected with the registration of vehicle and available of insurance.  It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost. 

4. The written version of fourth opposite party is as follows:

    The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties 1 to 4 have allegedly colluded together and sold a defective vehicle by suppressing material facts, indulged in unfair trade practice and that there has been deficiency of services as the services of registration and paying insurance as agreed at time of sale were allegedly not rendered, thus, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint.  In this regard, the allegation of collusion is totally false, misconceived and baseless and that the fourth opposite party has been wrongly impleaded by the complainant in the present complaint, as the fourth opposite party  is only an auto finance company and plays no role in providing ancillary services of registration of vehicle to the customer.  The relationship between the first opposite  party and fourth opposite party is on a principal to principal basis.  The dispute is mainly between the complainant and the first and second opposite parties, therefore, the name of the fourth opposite party deserves to be deleted from the array of parties of the present  complaint.  Hence, prayed this Hon’ble Commission may be dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.     

5.    Proof affidavit of complainant filed.  Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked.  Proof affidavit of third and fourth opposite parties filed.    Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked.  Written argument of both sides filed.        

6.    The points that of arises for consideration are:

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

               parties?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?

3. To what relief complainant is entitled to?

7. Point Nos. 1&2:               The complainant purchased a Yamaha BS-3 Two wheeler on 03.02.2017 for Rs.71,689/-, which include registration of vehicle during of insurance for the vehicle.  After purchase, the second opposite party delivered the vehicle on 03.02.2017 itself and assuring that the vehicle would be registered in due course.  It is pertinent to note that the complainant purchased the vehicle by availing a loan from the fourth opposite party.  After taking the delivery of the vehicle the opposite party forced the complainant to take health insurance policy for himself and his family from Cholamandalam insurance company for which the complainant never gave consent.  The main allegation is that despite of several request from the complainant for registration of the vehicle with the RTO office the first and second opposite parties did not give proper response.  As against the complainant could not  ply the vehicle on road since the vehicle did not have a RC book.  Later on the complainant reliably learned that there was ban on registration of BS-III type of vehicle from 1.4.2017.  The grievance of the complainant is that since the opposite party are doing automobile business for long time, they might have been aware of the ban.  Knowing fully aware that BS.3 type vehicle should not be registered from 1st April 2017, the opposite party sold the same with the view to cheat the complainant.  The complainant was forced to keep the vehicle idle.  Since the said vehicle did not have a RC book.  But he was forced to pay EMI for the aforesaid Two Wheeler loan which caused severe mental agony to the complainant.  According to the complainant the said acts of opposite parties are amounts to unfair trade practice and thereby there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant issued notice on 30.06.2019.  On receipt of the notice the fourth opposite party alone gave a reply.  Hence, the complainant filed this present compliant.

8.    On receipt of this complaint this commission issued notice to the opposite parties except third and fourth opposite parties all other opposite parties remain exparte.  In the present case the main answering respondents are opposite parties 1 and 2, but they neither appear nor filed any contra evidence against the claim of the complainant.  Therefore, we have no other option except accepting the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties.  Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.   

9.  POINT NO.3:       As we decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties.  The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to refund of Rs.71,689/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Nine only) the cost of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant,

    In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to refund of Rs.71,689/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Nine only) the cost of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of this order to till the date of realization.  As against the third and fourth opposite parties this complaint is dismissed.

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th October 2022.

    Sd/-                       Sd/-                       Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                     MEMBER – II                                    PRESIDENT

LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1 -         Original Receipt for the amount received from complainant given      

                               by first respondent Rs.12,689/-.

Ex.A2- 03.02.2017 – Original Delivery note of the vehicle sold to complainant.

Ex.A3- 08.02.2017 – Original Schedule of Loan agreement

Ex.A4- 08.02.2017 – Original Sanction letter of loan

Ex.A5- 17.03.2017 – Copy of Repayment schedule of loan amount showing the 

                                 repayment amount and cost of the vehicle

Ex.A6- 18.02.2017 – Original certificate of insurance with cholamandalam insurance 

                                 insuring under group health policy the complainant and his 

                                 family in the name of fourth respondent

Ex.A7- 04.03.2017 – Original Certificate of insurance with cholamandalam insurance 

                                 insuring the complainant under accident policy in the name of 

                                 fourth respondent.

Ex.A8- 16.03.2017 – Welcome Letter from fourth respondent giving customer ID.

Ex.A9- 10.07.2019 – E-mail Messages.

Ex.A10- 15.07.2019- Copy of notice sent by complainant 

Ex.A11- 30.06.2019- Copy of Notice sent by fourth respondent to the complainant 

Ex.A12- 15.07.2019- Reply notice sent by complainant 

Ex.A13-         - Two Acknowledgment cards of reply notice duly signed by 

                                   second and fourth respondents.

Ex.A14-         - Two return covers from first and second respondents

Ex.A15-         - Acknowledgment card duly signed by second respondent for 

                                   notice sent by complainant.

Ex.A16-         - The message of tracking postal cover as despatched to third 

                                   respondent with receipt.

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES  SIDE DOCUMENTS:   

Ex.B1                    -  The loan shield form from executed by the complainant 

Ex.B2                    -  Loan hypothecation agreement 

Ex.B3-29.06.2018  - Copy of letter

Ex.B4-05.02.2020  - Copy of letter    

Ex.B5-18.08.2021 -   Description of Documents  

ExB6                    -   Email from third opposite party to first opposite party

    Sd/-                        Sd/-                       Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                     MEMBER – II                                    PRESIDENT