DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/14/325 of 25.11.2014.
Decided on: 11.02.2015.
Jagdeep Singh, aged about 32, S/o. S. Amarjit Singh, R/o. Village & P.O. Dhuma, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
….….Complainant.
Versus
- M/S. Avonn Autos, C-21, Calibre Market, Rajpura-140401, through its Proprietor.
- Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, Sector 3, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon-122050, through its Managing Director.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura, through its Manager.
….…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. D.R. Arora, President.
Smt. Neelam Gutpa, Member.
Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member.
Present: Sh. Amar Singh counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Mohan Lal Manager of opposite party no.1.
ORDER
D.R. ARORA:
1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased one motor cycle make Honda Twister on 22.02.2014 from O.P. no.1 for Rs.57,313/- and the same included the fee of the RC, insurance, temporary registration number as also the processing charges. The complainant had made the down payment of Rs.12,000/- to O.P. no.1 and the balance amount had to be got from the bank in respect of loan got advanced for the complainant. The complainant had also sold his old motor cycle for Rs.28,000/- to the O.P. out of which Rs.16,000/- was received in cash by the complainant from the O.P. and the remaining amount of Rs.12,000/- was adjusted towards the price of the vehicle. The O.P. also received the loan amount of Rs.42,500/- got sanctioned by it.
2. The complainant approached O.P. no.1 in connection with the issuance of the certificate of registration and the delivery of the invoice but the same were not handed over to him on the ground that the same could not be delivered unless the loan is sanctioned.
3. It is further averred that the motorcycle of the complainant had met with an accident on May 6th, 2014, which was handed over to the O.P. on the same day for repair and for lodging the claim with the insurance company, the form in respect of which was got filled up and signed from the complainant.
4. The complainant approached the O.P. but neither he was delivered the motor cycle duly repaired nor he was handed over the registration certificate of the vehicle and even his insurance claim was also not forwarded to the Oriental Insurance Company on the ground that the O.P. failed to get the certificate of registration issued by the Transport Authority. The O.P., rather demanded an amount of Rs.5,298/- in respect of two loan installments, which were not asked at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly, the complainant got the O.P. served with a legal notice but the same was not responded to. The act of the O.P. in not having delivered the repaired motor cycle and the non-submission of the insurance claim is said to be a deficiency of service, which resulted into a harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the act) after having sent an e-mail to the Managing Director of O.P. no.2 so as to give a direction to the O.Ps. to provide the original certificate of registration, the invoice of the vehicle and to refund the amount of the insurance and also to hand over the repaired motor cycle.
5. Here it may be noted that the cognizance of the complaint was taken against O.P. no.1 only, who on appearance filed the written version. It is admitted by the O.P. that the complainant had purchased the motor cycle make Honda Twister from it on 22.02.2014 for Rs.57,313/- and the same included the cost of RC, insurance, temporary number of registration as also processing charges. The complainant had also exchanged his old motor cycle with the O.P. for Rs.28,000/-, out of which Rs.16,000/- was refunded to the complainant while Rs.12,000/- was adjusted towards the down payment in respect of the new motor cycle. The complainant got the loan amount of Rs.42,500/- sanctioned from Indusind Bank Ltd. and after the payment of which, the vehicle was delivered to him on 22.02.2014.
6. The O.P. has further given a detail of amount in respect of different items payable by the complainant as under:-
Ex showroom price : Rs.51513.00
Temporary number : Rs.30.00
Insurance : Rs.1080.00
RC fee : Rs.3310.00
Accessories : Rs.1380.00
Total : Rs.57313.00
Cash received from the complainant : Rs.12000.00
towards down payment
Loan amount received from bank : Rs.42500.00
Balance payment :Rs.57313-Rs.42500-Rs.12000= Rs.2813/
7. It is also the plea taken up by the O.P. that the complainant had approached the O.P. once and he was handed over the invoice on the same day. He was asked to make the payment of balance amount of Rs.2,813/- so that the O.P. could apply for the certificate of registration and the same could not be applied because of the said payment not to have been made by the complainant.
8. It is also the plea taken up by the O.P. that the complainant had met with an accident on 6th May, 2014 and he handed over his motor cycle to O.P. at 7 PM. He was requested to hand over all the original documents including insurance, RC, driving license and invoice on the next day and was also requested to clear the pending payment of Rs.2813/- for enabling the O.P. to get the RC applied and that his insurance claim could also be processed. However, the complainant had not turned up despite telephonic reminders. The insurance claim form was also never filled up because of the absence of the documents and in the absence of the appearance of the complainant for signatures on the documents. It is denied that the complainant was asked to pay Rs.5298/- and rather he was asked to pay Rs.2813/- only. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the O.P., it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex. CA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, on behalf of the O.P., Sh. Mohan Lal, its Manager tendered in evidence Ex. OPA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex. OP1 to Ex. OP5 and closed the evidence of O.P.
10. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. Mohan Lal, Manager of O.P. no.1 and gone through evidence on record.
11. Ex. OP1 is the copy of the Challan no.7001 dated 22.02.2014 issued by O.P. no.1 in the name of the complainant showing the price of the motor cycle make Twister as Rs.51,513/-, charges for temporary number Rs.30/-, insurance Rs.1,080/-, RC Rs.3,310/-, accessories Rs.1,380/-, in all aggregating Rs.57,313/-. Ex. OP3 is the copy of the retail invoice dated 28.04.2014 issued by O.P. no.1 in favour of the complainant regarding the sale of the motor cycle make CB Twister for Rs.51,513/-. Ex. OP2 is the account statement of the complainant maintained by the O.P. showing the price of the motor cycle make Twister at Rs.57,313/-, Rs.42,500/- received from Indusind Bank and Rs.12,000/- received in cash, thereby showing a balance of Rs.2,813/-. The complainant has also admitted about the cash of Rs.16,000/- received from the O.P. out of the price of the old motor cycle assessed at Rs.28,000/-, Rs.12,000/- having been adjusted towards the down payment of the new motor cycle purchased by him, thus, showing the complainant still to pay a sum of Rs.2,813/- to the O.P.
12. Now it has to be seen whether the O.P was justified in not having applied for the certificate of registration with the Motor Vehicles (Registering) Authority on account of the complainant having not deposited Rs.2,813/- with it. The O.P by virtue of the Challan Ex. OP1 had disclosed the complainant that he was under an obligation to deposit Rs.3,310/- towards the charges of the registration. The complainant was aware about the fact that his temporary certificate of registration was going to expire on 21.03.2014, as the same was valid for a period of 22.02.2014 to 21.03.2014 as would appear from Ex. C1, the photo copy of the temporary certificate of registration of the vehicle issued by O.P no.1 but the complainant failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.2,813/-. It cannot be said that the complainant was not aware about the charges/fee for the registration of the vehicle, which were disclosed by O.P no.1 on 22.02.2014 vide Challan form Ex. OP1. No explanation has been furnished by the complainant as to why he could not deposit the amount of Rs.2,813/- to enable the O.P to apply for the certificate of registration of the vehicle to the competent Motor Vehicles (Registering) Authority.
13. Merely because the O.P issued the retail invoice Ex. OP3 regarding the sale of the vehicle on 28.04.2014 would not mean that there was any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P in not having applied for the certificate of registration of the vehicle to the competent Motor Vehicles (Registering) Authority. The complainant should have deposited the balance amount of Rs.2,813/- with the O.P before expiry of the validity period of the temporary certificate of registration i.e. before 21.03.2014.
14. However, we find that it was a deficiency of service on the part of O.P no.1 in not having provided the complainant with the retail invoice on 22.02.2014, when the vehicle was delivered to him and which was issued on 28.04.2014 as would appear from Ex. OP3, the copy of the retail invoice. No explanation has been furnished by the O.P as to why the O.P could not issue the retail invoice to the complainant on 22.02.2014 when the vehicle was delivered to him. It is the plea taken up by the O.P that Mr. Jagdeep Singh got the loan of Rs.42,500/- from Indusind Bank Ltd. after which the vehicle was delivered to him on 22.02.2014 meaning thereby that the price of the vehicle had already been received by the O.P before delivery of the vehicle in as much as the O.P received Rs.12,000/- out of the sale price of the old vehicle of the complainant, which was sold for Rs.28,000/- by the complainant to the O.P and as Rs.16,000/- was paid to the complainant. Therefore, the delay of 2 months and 6 days in issuing the retail invoice by O.P no.2 was certainly a deficiency of service on the part of the O.P, which certainly resulted into the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant because in case the O.P had delivered the retail invoice to the complainant on the date of the sale, the complainant might have got the RC of the vehicle issued from the Motor Vehicles (Registering) Authority himself.
15. As regards the failure on the part of the O.P not to have processed the case of the complainant for lodging the claim with the insurance company, we cannot hold the O.P responsible for the same because the complainant had to deposit the documents for that sake with the O.P. including the certificate of registration, which could not be got by the O.P for want of deficit amount of Rs.2,813/-, to have been deposited by the complainant with the O.P. Moreover it was only a complementary service to be rendered by the O.P in the matter of submitting his claim with the insurance company i.e. O.P no.3 but otherwise O.P no.1 was not under any obligation to do the same.
16. As an upshot of our aforesaid discussion, it would appear that there was a deficiency of service on the part of O.P no.1 in not having delivered the retail invoice to the complainant on 22-02-2014 when the vehicle was delivered to him despite having received the entire payment for the same but we do not find any deficiency on the part of the O.P in not having applied for the RC of the vehicle with the Motor Vehicles (Registering) Authority because of the failure on the part of the complainant to deposit the deficit amount of Rs.2,813/-. We accept the complaint partly and give a direction to O.P no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant and the same is also inclusive of the cost of the complaint. Since there is no evidence to show that the retail invoice was handed over to the complainant by O.P. no.1, the O.P is also directed to hand over the retail invoice to the complainant within 7 days on receipt of certified copy of the order. The O.P shall also be obliged to apply for the certificate of registration of the vehicle with the Motor Vehicles (Registering) Authority on the complainant depositing the balance amount of Rs.2,813/- with it, within 7 days on deposit of said amount with the O.P.
Pronounced.
Dated: 11.02.2015.
Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R. Arora
Member Member President
