IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 34/2021 (Filed on 09/02/2021)
Complainant : Babu Varghese S/o Varghese,
Pioneer Aluminium House,
15/35 ABCDJ, M.C Road,
Paippadu Village, Laikkadu P.O,
Kottayam – 686 102.
(By Advs: Zakhier Huzzain & A. Sunitha)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1. M/s.Mercedes-Benz India (P) Limited,
E-3, MIDC Chakan Phase III,
Kuruli & Nighoje – 410 501.
Rep. by The Managing Director,
(By Advs: Sijo Joseph & Sobha Sunil KAD)
2. M/s.Rajasree Motors (P) Limited,
2/393 C, NH-47, Maradu P.O,
Kochi – 682 304.
Rep. by The Managing Director
(By Advs: P. Ramakrishnan, T.C Krishna & Dimple Raj.M)
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Kottayam.
.
O R D E R
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
The case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant had purchased a Mercedez Benz car C 300 D model on 29-02-2020 from the second opposite party manufactured by the first opposite party, who is the manufacturer of luxury vehicles in India. He paid an amount of Rs. 51,10,622/- as ex showroom price for the car and in addition to this he paid Rs.12,16,029/- for one time tax and insurance. Complainant opted for BS VI version and avoided bargain deals which offered Rs.10 lakhs less for the old version BS IV. Due to the gross negligence in filling the Form 22, the opposite parties have entered emission norm as BHARATH STAGE IV and BHARATH STAGE VI instead of BHARATH STAGE VI as opted by the complainant. Due to this emission norm RTO insisted the complainant to get register the vehicle immediately therefore he could not select a fancy number for his car. When the registration certificate came the emission norms of the vehicle is written as BHARATH STAGE IV/VI. Immediately the complainant contacted the first and second opposite parties and even though they agreed to correct the same but they did not heed to. According to the complainant the present endorsement shown in the RC book is BSIV/VI would diminish the resale value of the vehicle. It is averred in the complaint that by such a wrong entry made in Form 22, the RTO insisted him to register the vehicle in haste and as he could not avail a fancy number. The action of the opposite parties of wrong entry in Form 22 and thereby cause wrong entry in emission norm in RC and the subsequent failure on their part to correct the mistake shows a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to change the
emission norm BHARATH STAGE IV and BHARATH STAGE VI to BHARATH STAGE VI in RC or in the alternative pay damages of Rs. 1,000,000/- along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the Commission. Though the third opposite party appeared before the Commission, they did not care to file version. Hence the third opposite party was set ex-party.
First opposite party filed version contending as follows:
The relationship between the first opposite party and the second opposite party is on principal to principal basis. The authorized dealers are responsible for retail sale and after sale services of the vehicle. The first opposite party is unnecessarily dragged into the present litigation. The averment regarding complainant’s motivation for buying the subject vehicle are denied for want of knowledge and the complainant avoided bargain deals offering 10 lakhs less for the old version BS IV is also denied. The first and second opposite parties are separate legal entities and the first opposite party is not privy to any transaction between the complainant and second opposite party. The first opposite party was not negligent in filling out Form 22. It is denied, for want of knowledge, that the RTO insisted that the complainant got subject vehicle registered immediately and as a result the complainant could not select a fancy number for the vehicle. The averment under reply that second opposite party agreed to correct the emissions norm, do not pertain to the first opposite party. It is denied that first opposite party did not heed to the complainant’s vehicle. First opposite party tried to address the grievance and mitigate the same by necessary measures. The first opposite party has no control over the process of endorsement, same being decided by the proper authorities. The first opposite party denied that BSIV/VI endorsement on the RC book would diminish the resale value of the vehicle. It is submitted in the version that complainant’s vehicle complies with Bharath stage VI norms. Upon receipt of legal notice first opposite party had duly communicated complainant’s concern to the second opposite party and sought redressal of the same, where by first opposite party informed that a change in the Bharath stage emission standard certificate on RC can only be processed after a letter to that effect certifying BSVI compliance is obtained from Automotive Research Association of India. The requisite confirmation was received from ARAI on 16-10-2020 itself and the same was shared with transport authorities, by NIC India on the same date. Further second opposite party was informed for further processing and resolving the grievance. It was further clarified by ARAI that BSIV/VI certificates were issued as per the requirements of the RTO and since at the time of registration of subject vehicle BS VI emission norms were in place, the same was endorsed on the subject vehicle’s RC. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
Version of the second opposite party is as follows:
The second opposite party is the dealer of the passenger cars manufactured by the first opposite party. The vehicles purchased by the complainant complies with the Bharath Stage VI norms. Form 22 is issued by the manufacturer and not by the dealer. The manufacturer issued Form 22 for registration of the vehicle mentioning that the vehicles complies Bharath stage IV/VI norms. The registration certificate issued by the third opposite party also reflects the same. Upon complaint by the complainant, the issue was taken up with the third opposite party. The first opposite party also had taken the grievance with the third opposite party. All necessary steps have been taken to redress the grievance of the complainant, including issuance of fresh Form 22 and the same was submitted before the registering authority. There is no negligence, deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice from the part of the second opposite party.
Evidence of this case consists of deposition of PW1, DW1 and Exhibits A1 to A12 from the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 to B4 from the side of the second opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points :
Whether the complainant has succeed to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and entitled for any reliefs and costs ?
POINT Nos. 1 & 2 :-
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had purchased a Mercedez Benz car C 300 D model on 29-02-2020 from the second opposite party which is manufactured by the first opposite party. Exhibit A1 which is the tax invoice dated 29-02-2020 issued by the second opposite party proves that the complainant had spent Rs.51,10,622.49/- for the same. The specific case of the complainant is that due to negligence in filling Form 22, the opposite parties have entered the emission norm as BHARATH STAGE IV and BHARATH STAGE VI instead of BHARATH STAGE VI and due to the same he had to register his car immediately and due to which he could not opt for a fancy number for his car. It is further alleged in the complaint that since the RC book depicts the complainant’s vehicle as BHARATH STAGE IV and BHARATH STAGE VI instead of BHARATH STAGE VI, the same would diminish the resale value of the vehicle. It is pertinent to note that both the first and second opposite parties admitted that the vehicles purchased by the complainant complies with the Bharath Stage VI norms of emission.
Admittedly in the registration certificate the emission norms of the vehicle is recorded as Bharath Stage IV/Bharath Stage VI. It is argued by the first opposite party that the complainant had purchased the vehicle during the regime of Bharath Stage IV emission norms. The Government of India set 1-04-2020 as the launch of Bharath Stage VI emission norms. It is argued by the first opposite party that in the State of Kerala prior to 1-04-2020, the Motor Vehicles Department did not allow registration of vehicles which have BS VI compliance as Bharath Stage VI alone. According to the first opposite party hence, prior to 1-04-2020, the vehicles which have Bharath Stage VI emission norms were registered as Bharath Stage IV/Bharath Stage VI.
Exhibit A8 is the copy of the Form 22 which is the initial certificate of compliance with pollution standards, safety standards of components quality and road worthiness. On perusal of exhibit A8 we can see that fourth query was regarding the emission norms. The same is reproduced hereunder.
“4. Emission norms applicable (Bharath Stage - IV/VI/Bharth (Trem) stage III/III A etc)”. The entry against this query as Bharath Stage IV and Bharath Stage VI. Admittedly Exhibit A8 was filled and uploaded by the first opposite party manufacturer. On a close scrutiny of Exhibit A8 we can see that the first opposite party can answer the query regarding the emission norms as Bharath Stage VI.
DW1 who is the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam during the cross examination deposed before Commission that if the manufacturer upload the details as Bharath Stage VI with registering authority then they would register the vehicle as Bharath Stage VI. He further deposed before the Commission that except the details of the purchaser and the details regarding the finance other details of RC particulars were uploaded by the manufacturer of the vehicle.
Though the first opposite party argued that in the State of Kerala prior to 1-04-2020, the Motor Vehicles Department did not allow registration of vehicles which have BS VI compliance as Bharath Stage VI alone, they did not produce any record to substantiate their case. On the basis of above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the first opposite party has filled up Form 22 in a negligent manner which amounts to imperfection in the service provided by them to the complainant.
Moreover it is pertinent to note that though the first and second opposite parties contended that they have obtained Exhibit B2 letter from Automotive Research Association of India certifying BS VI compliance on 16-10-2020 itself and the same was shared with transport authorities, by NIC India on the same date, they did not produce any evidence to prove that the same was handed over to the registering authorities.
On evaluation of above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the first opposite party has committed deficiency in service by filling up Form 22 emission norm as Bharath Stage IV and Bharath Stage VI instead of Bharath Stage VI. The deficient act of the first opposite party has caused the resale value of the vehicle which has Bharath stage VI emission norm to diminish.. No doubt due to the deficient act of the first opposite party the complainant had suffered much sufferings and loss for which the first opposite party is liable to compensate. The complainant is entitled to rectify the wrong entry into the Registration certificate of the vehicle regarding the emission norm. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
We hereby direct the opposite parties to change the emission norm Bharath Stage IV and Bharath Stage VI to Bharath Stage VI in the Registration Certificate of the complainant’s vehicle Mercedez Benz car C 300 D model.
We hereby direct the first opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant for mental agony and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If not complied as directed, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Witness from the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Babu Varghese
Witness from the side of Opposite Parties :
DW1 - Harikrishanan.K
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
Ex. A1 - Tax Invoice dated 29-02-2020 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ext.A2 - Reply letter dated 11/11/2020 by Argus Partners to Adv.Zakhier
Huzzain
Ext.A3 - Copy of E-mail communication between complaint and 2nd
opposite party
Ext.A4 - Letter dated 29/09/2020 issued by the complainant to
the 2nd opposite party
Ext.A5 - Copy of E-mail dated 30/05/2020 addressed to the Ist opposite party
Ext.A6 - Copy of E-mail dated 28/08/2020 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ext.A7 - Copy of E-mail dated 10/09//2020 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ext.A8 - Copy of Form 22 which is the initial certificate of compliance
with pollution standards, safety standards of components quality
and road worthiness
Ext.A9 - Copy of Certificate of Registration(KL 33M 4494)
Ext.A10 - Copy of Legal Notice dated 05/10/2020 issued by the complainant to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties
Ext.A11 - Copy of E-mail dated 30/05/2020 issued by the complainant to
the Ist opposite party
Ext.A12 - AD Card
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Ext.B1 - Copy of relevant extracts of Dealership Agreement
between 1st & 2nd opposite parties
Ext.B2 - Copy of E-mail dated 16/10/2020 from ARAI
Ext.B3 - Copy of E-mail communication dated 16/10/2020 from NIC,
India to ARAI with a copy marked to opposite parties 1 & 3
Ext.B4 - Copy of E-mail communication dated.16/10/2020 from the
1st opposite Party to 2nd opposite party
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
