By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the the opposite parties to take back the vehicle and to pay cost and compensation due to furnishing wrong chassis number his new vehicle.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of Maruthi Suzuki cars and the opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of Opposite party No.2 in Kerala State. The complainant had purchased a LMV Motor car from the opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 with the financial aid of M/S Sundaram Finance Ltd, Ernakulam. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant by the 1st opposite party and delivery was effected on 13.01.2016. At the time of delivering the vehicle, temporary registration was made and handed over to the complainant with all vehicular documents and with a direction to effect permanent registration within one month. The documents handed over to the complainant includes Vehicle Data Sheet and Form 22 which are required to be produced for effecting permanent registration of the vehicle. The complainant accordingly approached the registering authority, Wayanad (JRTO, Sulthan Bathery) with the documents handed over by the 1st opposite party. Unfortunately, the registering authority, SulthanBathery, rejected registration and issued notice to the complainant pointing out certain defects in the documents produced by the opposite party No.1. One of the defects pointed out is that, in the Data sheet , the wheelbase of the vehicle was noted as '0.00' and the second one is the chassis number of the vehicle noted in Form 21 and 22 is not tailing each other. So the complainant was directed to rectify those mistakes and to approach once again. On getting intimation from registering authority, the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party and wanted to rectify the said mistakes. The 1st opposite party did not properly responded to the request made by the complainant and instructed the complainant to approach the registering authority through agent doing the registration work and failed to rectify the mistakes noted. The 2nd opposite party was also contacted by the complainant, but of no wail. Hence the complainant is constrained to bring this complaint before the Forum for redressal of his grievances.
3. The complainant submitted that the complainant is a professional and the car was purchased for discharging his duties by going to various courts in Wayanad District. Since the vehicle was not registered, the complainant could not use the car of the intended purpose. Over and above, the complainant had to spent money by way of hire charges for taxi to attend his works. The complainant had incurred an amount of Rs.2,000/- per day for hire charges. The complainant has been put to mental stress and strain due to the acts on the part of the opposite parties. Above all, the complainant has to pay interest for the finance obtained from M/s. Sundaram Finance without making use of the vehicle. The opposite parties are legally bound to rectify the mistakes made by them so as to enable the complainant to effect permanent registration of the vehicle. The act on the part of the opposite party is 'deficiency in service' as defined in the consumer Protection act and the complainant is a consumer as defined in the act. On a modest estimate the complainant is limiting his claim for the loss sustained to Rs.50,000/- and claim for compensation for mental stress and strain to Rs.1,50,000/- aggregating to the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to complainant. The complainant is producing the data sheet supplied by opposite party No.1 and Form No.22 and the intimation given by the registering authority. Hence filed this complaint.
4. Notices were served to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 not filed version. Hence he is declared ex-parte on 06.06.2016, opposite party No.2 filed version stating that the contents of Para 2 of the complaint in so far relating to opposite party No.2 as stated are incorrect and denied. It is emphatically denied that the complainant had purchased a LMV Motor car from the Opposite Party No.2 as alleged. It is, however, submitted that the complainant has admittedly booked/purchased the vehicle in question under a contract for sale of goods (Maruti LMV Motor car) and entered into an agreement after having mutually settled the terms and conditions with Opposite Party No.1. There is no sale transaction executed between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has neither paid any amount to Opposite Party No.2 towards the booking/price of vehicle in question nor the answering Opposite party sold/delivered vehicle in question to the complainant. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.2 being manufacturer does not sell the vehicles so manufactured by it to any individual customer directly. The Opposite Party No.2 sells the vehicles to its authorized dealers including Opposite Party No.1 who sell the same to their customers under its invoice and sale certificate. The Opposite Party No.2 is not liable to rectify the alleged mistakes as alleged. In the instant case, the terms and conditions for sale of vehicle in question were amicably settled between complainant and Opposite Party No.1. The entire sale transactions have taken place between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Opposite Party No.2 is not involved. The Opposite Party No.1 is a separate and independent legal entity. The Opposite Party No.2 is not responsible for any act of omission and commission on the part of opposite party No.1. The complainant failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claims against opposite Party No.1. Rest of the contents of this Para relate to Opposite party No.1 to reply.
5. That the contents of para 3 of the complaint in so far relating to opposite Party No.2 as stated are vague, incorrect and denied. The complainant has not pointed out any specific allegation against the opposite Party No.2. It is wrong and denied that the vehicle was not registered due to any act of omission and commission on the part of answering opposite Party. It is emphatically denied that the complainant has been put to mental stress and strain due to the acts on the part of answering opposite Party as alleged. The complainant is not entitled to seek alleged hire charges from the opposite Party No.2. The complainant has admittedly purchased the vehicle in question from opposite party No.1 under their own invoice and sale certificate. The complainant has caused unlawful loss to opposite party No.2 and unnecessarily dragged the opposite party No.2 in to litigation to obtain undue gains. That the contents of para 4 of the complaint are vague,incorrect and denied. It is emphatically denied that the Opposite Party No.2 is legally bound to rectify the alleged mistakes. There is no act of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 as alleged. The complainant is not a 'consumer' of Opposite Party No.2 as alleged. The complainant is not entitled to seek any loss and compensation from the answering Opposite Party as alleged. It is vehemently denied that the answering Opposite Party is jointly and severally liable to pay the alleged amount to the complainant. In the instant case, the complainant admittedly purchased the vehicle in question from Opposite Party No.1 vide its invoice and sale certificate wherein the Opposite Party No.2 is not involved at all. The Opposite Party No.1 is a separate and independent legal entity. The Opposite Party No.2 is not liable for any act of omission and commission on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The vehicle in question was neither sold nor the alleged documents were issued by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant as alleged. The complainant has failed to place any material on record to substantiate his claims against Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has abused the process of law by filing a false complaint against Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has no case against the Opposite Party No.2 to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. This Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try or entertain the present complaint against Opposite Party No.2. The present complaint is devoid of merit. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has filed a frivolous and vexatious complainant against Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has no case for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the opposite Party No2. The complainant is not entitled to any relief, under the Act, as prayed. There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party No.2. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with cost.
6. Opposite party No.3 filed version stating that I may submit the following statement of facts for kind perusal and favourable orders. The petition is against the rejection of application for registration of vehicle. The petitioner admits that the vehicle could not be registered since the chassis number in form 21 and 22 are different. The form 21 is the sale certificate issued by the dealer and the form 22 is the road worthiness certificate issued by the manufacturer. The chassis number and Engine number in the form 21 must be the same number issued by the manufacturer in form 22. It is the duty of the dealer to make sure that the vehicle is sold to the customer with the same chassis number and the engine number issued by the manufacturer. The registration certificate will be issued on receipt of the application under rule 47 of CMVR and after verification of the documents furnished therewith. If the documents produced for registration by the applicant are not correct, normally the application will be returned to the applicant directing him to submit the application after rectifying the defects. In this case, when the vehicle was produced for inspection on 11.02.2016, the inspecting officer returned the application directing the petitioner to produce form 21 with the same chassis number entered in the form 22. The vehicle is identified mainly with the chassis number and the engine number of the vehicle. Hence, the accuracy of the chassis number and engine number is very important and that is to be verified by the inspecting officer at the time of inspection of the vehicle. It is the duty of the inspecting officer to make sure that all the documents produced by the applicant for the registration is correct. Later, on 23.03.2016, the petitioner produced the vehicle for inspection and the vehicle was registered in this office with a Registration No KL 73 A 3956 on the basis of the declaration submitted by the dealer. There is no deficiency of service in the part of this office. This authority is not liable for any delay in the registration of the vehicle. It is the duty of the applicant to produce correct documents at the time of registration. If the relevant documents were produced at the time of registration, there would not be any delay in registering the vehicle. Therefore, I may humbly request that the petition may be set aside without any merits.
7. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and Ext.A1 to A3 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the Form No.22 issued by opposite party No.2 wherein the chassis number of the vehicle is not clear. Ext.A2 is the Vehicle Data sheet issued by the opposite party No.1. Ext.A3 is the check list wherein the oposite party No.3 reported that Form 22 and Form 21 chassis number not matching. Ext.X1(1), X1(2), X1(3) documents are also marked. Ext.X1(1) is the Same as Ext.A3, Ext.X1(2) is same as Ext.A2 and Ext.X1(3) is same as Ext.A1. Ext.X2 document is also marked. Ext.X2 is issued by the opposite party No.1, wherein it is stated that “in the car, the chassis number was not clear in Form 22, we mentioned correct chassis number in form 21 and other documents. We humbly request you to register the vehicle with the form 22 and correct chassis Number as MA3EWB22SFM121249, we declare that this is a genuine case and please do the needful”. Opposite party No.1 was ex-parte. Opposite party No.2 and 3 not adduced any oral evidence.
8. On considering the complaint, versions,documents and evidences, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the
part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
9. Point No.1:- The complainant alleges that his vehicle was not registered by opposite party No.3 stating that “the chassis number of the vehicle noted in Form 21 and 22 is not tallyng each other”. Opposite Party No.3 stated in his version that “in this case, when the vehicle was produced for inspection on 11.02.2016, the inspecting officer returned the application directing the petitioner to produce Form 21 with the same chassis number entered in the Form 22” and also stated that “later on 23.03.2016 the petitioner produced the vehicle for inspection and the vehicle was registered in this office with registration No. KL 73 A 3956 on the basis of the declaration submitted by the dealer”. Hence we could not found any deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 also stated that “the opposite party No.2 is not liable to rectify the alleged mistakes as alleged”. Further stated that “the opposite party No.1 is a separate and independent legal entity. The opposite party No.2 is not responsible for any act or omission and commission on the part of opposite party No.1. In this case the opposite party No.1 not appeared before the Forum and not defended the case also. Opposite party No.3 categorically stated that at the time of 1st inspection the vehicle could not be registered due to non matching of chassis number in Form 21 and Form 22 and further stated that later on 23.03.2016 the vehicle is registered on the basis of the declaration submitted by the dealer ie Ext.X2 document. Ext.X2 proves that when Ext.X2 is produced by opposite party No.1 the vehicle got registered. Hence we found that at the time of sale, not providing the proper document, ie Form 21 and Form 22 by the opposite party No.1 is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, due to this reason, the registration is delayed by 42 days and opposite party No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
10. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 is liable to pay compensation for the delay in registration of the vehicle and also liable to pay cost of the litigation. Hence the Point No.2 is found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order. Failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for whole the amount till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of December 2016.
Date of Filing: 17.03.2016
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. P. R. Sajimon (Affidavit) Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Form 22.
A2. Copy of Vehicle Data Sheet. Dt:13.01.2016.
A3. Copy of Checklist.
X1(1). Copy of Checklist.
X1(2). Copy of Vehicle Data Sheet. Dt:13.01.2016.
X1(3). Copy of Form 22.
X2. Copy of Request for Register of Vehicle.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
