O R D E R

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:

          The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that he had purchased a motor bike from 3^rd Op for consideration of Rs.52,770/- during September 2007.   That he had also paid through a cheque Rs.2,770/- on account of Disc 135 model in favour of 3^rd Op.   That second Op had issued a receipt of Rs.46,242/- showing receipt of  full cost of the bike.   That vehicle has been insured with Op No.2 on 07/09/2007 but Op No.2 has failed to issue documents relating to the said motor bike like RC book etc., till date.  He could not make use of the vehicle and stated that Op No.3 is also equally responsible and also alleged that Op No.2 and 3 have failed to furnish necessary documents to make use of the vehicle.  That he also filed a complaint against those Ops to the concerned police.   Thus complainant attributing deficiency in the service of Op No.2 and 3 has stated that Op No.1 is the manufacturer and Op No.4 is the insurance company and has prayed for a direction to the Op No. 1 to 3 to replace a new motor bike with relevant documents or to refund money paid by him with interest and to furnish documents of the motor bike sold to him and to direct Op No.4 to furnish policy documents and to award compensation with costs, by further contending that he had purchased this motor bike for his business purpose as he suffered loss due to non-user of the bike

2. Considering the allegations of the complainant, this forum had issued notice to Op No.3 only.   Op No.2 appeared through his advocate voluntarily. Op No.3 is duly served with the notice of this complaint through substituted service as he remained absent is set ex-parte.   Op No.2 in the version filed has stated that it may be true that the complainant had purchased a motor bike from Op No.3 by paying its cost but denied to have issued a receipt dated 20/09/2007 for Rs.46,242/- in proof of full payment of the cost of the motor bike, contending that he has no knowledge about insurance of the vehicle with Op No.4 and contended that allegations of the complainant that they have not issued the motor bike documents is false.   This Op further denying that the complainant has not been able to use the bike admitted that Op No.3 is responsible for non furnishing RC book and other documents relating to motor bike purchased by the complainant, but contended that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and themselves and stated that Op No.3 has illegally collected money from the complainant towards cost of the motor bike and has not remitted that entire amount to them.    Therefore, stated that he is not liable to issue necessary documents.   Further, contended to have filed a police complaint against Op No.3 and stated that Op No.3 has sold several bikes belongs to them but has not paid money to them.   It is further contended that Op No.3 has cheated in this way several customers but denying their liability to the complainant for the reliefs claimed has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and second Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version.   The complainant along with the complaint has produced copies of receipts for having paid the cost of the motor bike to Op No.3, a copy of the receipt said to have been issued by Op No.2 for Rs.46,242/-, with a copy of insurance policy and a copy of complaint he had given to the concerned police.   Op No.2 has produced a copy of police complaint he had given complaint against Op No.3.   Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.   We have heard the counsel for Op No.2 and perused the records.

4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.

1. Whether the complainant proves that the Op No.2 is also liable for the deficient act caused by Op No.3 in not furnishing necessary documents for registration of motor bike purchased from Op No.3 ?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Our findings are as under:

Point No.1 : In the affirmative

Point No.2 : See the final order

REASONS

6.Answer on point No.1: On consideration of the complainant allegations and version filed by Op No.2, though we do not find necessary averments to know the relationship between Op No.2 and 3 but in the course of arguments it came out and even it was admitted by the counsel for Op No.2, that Op No.2 is a main dealer of motor bikes manufactured by Op No.1 and Op No.3 is a sub dealer of Op No.2 and that Op No.3 was selling motor bikes to the intended buyers on behalf of Op No.2.   This relationship between Op No.2 and 3 could be gathered from the admission made by Op No.2 in Para 6 and 9 of his version.   Op No.2 here has admitted that Op No.3 was responsible for non-furnishing RC and other documents relating to the motor bike purchased by the complainant and in Para 9, this Op has stated that Op No.3 has not paid full payment of the bike to them that means this Op has received only a part payment but not full payment.  It is further stated because of the complainant and 3^rd Op have not paid the full payment of the bike to them therefore, they did not furnish the documents to the complainant and stated to had lodged a police complaint against the 3^rd Op and that the 3^rd Op has cheated them by not paying the amount collected from the customers of several two wheelers.   This admission of Op No.2, un- erroringly prove the fact that Op No.3 was a sub- dealer of Op No.2.  The complainant has also produced a copy of receipt said to have been issued by Op No.2 with their seal.   Though Op No.2 has made a casual denial but has not specifically denied issue of this receipt and its genuineness.  Further Op No.2 has not denied about this complainant approaching them for issue of necessary documents for registration of the bike.   Thus Op No.2 is a Principal dealer of Op No.1 is liable for all the acts and omissions of his sub dealer through whom he has sold the bike.

7. The complainant by the evidence and documents produced with admission of Op No.2 has proved that he did not get necessary bike documents for registration purpose from Ops No.2 and 3 and therefore he has been put to lot of inconvenience.   But the contention of the complainant that he could not make use of the bike, he was not using it and he has suffered business loss cannot be heard, because of having had purchased the bike in the month of September 2007 he had kept quite for all these years till he filed this complaint during May 2010.   If he was not really using the bike and was suffering why did he kept quite for all these years is a question that points to him and he has not come with any satisfactory explanation.   However, the facts remains that the second and third Op did not furnish necessary documents for registration of the bike.  The forum can only award damages or compensation for deficiency against the service provider but not to award loss of earnings.   The second Op is the principal dealer cannot escape his liability of furnishing documents for the purpose of registration of the bike.   Therefore, he is not only liable on his own but also liable on behalf of Op No.3 vicariously.    As such, Op No.2 and 3 are held as deficient in their service.  For the above reason, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.

O R  D  E  R

          Complaint is allowed.

          Ops No.2 and 3 are held as deficient in their service and therefore are jointly and severally directed to furnish necessary documents for the purpose of registration of the motor bike purchased by the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.   Failing which, they are directed to pay Rs.300/- per month from the date of this order until they furnish necessary documents.

          Ops No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

          Ops No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.

          That amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this order failing which Ops shall pay interest @ 12% p.a to the complainant till that amount is paid.

          Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected.   Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 1^st December 2010.

MEMBER                          MEMBER                               PRESIDENT