CC No.661.2015

Filed on 08.04.2015

Disposed on 15.05.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF MAY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.661/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

PRESENT:

    Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

            PRESIDENT

                 Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                          MEMBER

                                            V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 08.04.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.9,70,000/- the loss caused to the Complainant along with 24% p.a., to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and other reliefs. 

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that the Complainant is a private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is doing activities in providing Visa services. The Opposite Party is the Authorized Dealer of Land Rover cars in Bangalore.  The Complainant had approached the Opposite Party during June 2014 for purchase of a car, Range Rover-Sport 3L. Having satisfied with the representation given by the Opposite Party, the Complainant has agreed for the purchase of the vehicle.  On 16.06.2014, the car was purchased by the Complainant by paying an amount of Rs,1,49,84,123/- to the Opposite Party.  The Complainant has raised loan with Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited for an amount of Rs.1,50,13,167/- and the release order was issued by the financier on 16.06.2014 directing the Opposite Party to hand over the car to the Complainant or its authorized representative.  The Complainant was informed by the Opposite Party that since the vehicle is a high end one, an advice was given to register the same in Pondicherry where the road tax is very less compared to rest of India.  However, the Complainant decided to go for temporary registration in Bangalore by providing the local branch address in Bangalore.  The vehicle was given with temporary registration No.KA-05 TS-3160.  Thereafter, the Complainant with an intention to use the vehicle at its head office at Hyderabad has informed the Opposite Party to hand over Form-22 which is a pre requisite document to be produced at the time of getting permanent registration.  At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle, the Opposite Party has promised to furnish original copy of the Form-22 and the temporary registration certificate little later.   The vehicle is insured with M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited by paying premium amount of Rs.2,65,000/-.    Since the temporary registration will be in force for thirty days only without any option for renewal, the Complainant has requested the Opposite Party to furnish Form-22 at the earliest.  Even after ten days of purchase, there are no responses from the Opposite Party which prompted the Complainant to send a mail to Opposite Party on 23.06.2014 requesting to send the documents at the earliest.  In the meantime, on a telephonic conversation, the Complainant was informed that the documents are sent through courier.  When the courier was not reached the Complainant, a request was placed with Opposite Party to provide the delivery number of the said parcel.  For the said request, the Opposite Party has responded on 24.06.2014 by stating that originals will be couriered on the same day.  This text was sent to Complainant at 12.05 p.m.   Such being the case, Complainant was surprised to receive a mail from Opposite Party at 6.01 p.m which states that they require concurrence of the financier of the car for getting permanent registration and hence, the Complainant was directed to obtain approval for the same. This outrageous demand by the Opposite Party put the Complainant in an indecisive position.  Since, there is no basis behind the demand made by the Opposite Party, Complainant had immediately expressed dissatisfaction in respect of the services and different stands taken in so for as handing over required documents which are essential for permanent registration.  No response in turn was received from the Opposite Party.  On 26.06.2014, a reminder was sent to Opposite Party to handing over the original documents, Form-22 and temporary registration.  Even after successive attempts, Complainant was not able to succeed in getting the required documents within one month.  Since, the period of temporary registration expired, Complainant was left with no option except to put the vehicle in an idle mode.  This has caused great inconvenience.  Having purchased the vehicle by paying such a huge amount, Complainant was paying monthly EMI to its financier at the rate of Rs.4,85,481/- p.m.  Even representations made to the office of the Opposite Party by the representative of Complainant yield no results.  Ultimately, the Complainant was prevented from utilizing the service of the vehicle because of the attitude of Opposite Party and the exact reasons are not made known.  The Complainant has paid Rs.3,14,150/- on 22.08.2014 as commercial tax under the Telangana Tax on entry on goods into local area.  Further the Complainant was ready with the demand draft for Rs.22,70,270/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Hyderabad Branch, towards the life tax on the vehicle.  All these facts are communicated to the Opposite Party.  Personal representations are made through the executives of the Complainant to the office of the Opposite Party and despite the same, the Opposite Party has not come forward to handover the said documents at the earliest as expected.  Ultimately, after the repeated attempts made, the Complainant was able to get the originals of the form 22 and the temporary registration from the Opposite Party only on 22.09.2014.  The Complainant was making arrangements for getting the vehicle registration and since the demand draft already taken requires certain modification, the said demand draft was submitted for cancellation.  On 28.09.2014, due to some exigency, the vehicle was taken for urgent use inevitably and due to an untoward incident, vehicle suffered certain damage.  The vehicle was taken to a local dealer in Hyderabad for repair and the cost comes out to Rs.4,28,684/-.   Though a claim was made with the insurer, assigning the reason that the vehicle was not having permanent registration number, the insurer of the vehicle declined to entertain the claim of the Complainant.  The Complainant having paid the cost of the repair has got released the vehicle on 22.10.2014.  Subsequently, the vehicle was registered in Hyderabad on 07.11.2014.  The present registered number of the vehicle is TS 09 EA 0011.  Feeling dissatisfied with the chain of incidents after purchase of the vehicle and also the way in which the Opposite Party has treated the Complainant, a legal notice was sent to Opposite Party highlighting the deficiency of service and to pay the damages to the Complainant.  The said notice was duly served on the Opposite Party and for which a detailed reply was also sent and at that point only, the Complainant was made to know that the Opposite Party has withheld the documents citing the reason of internal business competition with its fellow dealer in Hyderabad.  The reason assigned by the Opposite Party in withholding the original documents is illegal and without any basis.  If the said revelation was made at the initial point of time, Complainant would not have proceeded to purchase the vehicle.  Having kept quite till the date of purchase, the Opposite Party has made different assurances and ultimately Complainant was made to deprive the use of the vehicle for a long period.  This act on the part of the Opposite Party amounts to serious disregard towards a customer and adding to that Complainant was also misled by the representatives of Opposite Party.  By these acts of Opposite Party, the Complainant was put to lot of inconvenience and forced to suffer financially without the utility of the vehicle for the interregnum period.  Hence, the Opposite Party is liable to compensate for the same.  The Opposite Party is duty bound to hand over the original documents in issue immediately. On the other hand having made the Complainant to run from pillar to post, the documents are sent only after two and half months.  Hence, all these events collectively pointing lapse in observing proper service by the Opposite Party.  Therefore, the Complainant is to be compensated by the Opposite Party the cost of at least two EMIs for the delay and deficiency apart from special damages.   There is nothing which prevents any purchaser of a vehicle to get register anywhere in India subjecting to production of requisite documents as contemplated in M.V.Act.  Once, the vehicle is sold by the dealer, it is the responsibility of the owner to get the vehicle registered with the concerned registering authority, provides that how a vehicle can be registered by producing requisite documents as stated therein.  Among other documents, one such requirement is production of Form-22 from the manufacturer regarding road worthiness of the particular vehicle.  This Form will be issued along with the new vehicle by every manufacturer to the particular dealer.  When the purchase price is paid by the owner of a vehicle and the vehicle as duly insured, every dealer is having obligation and duty bound to furnish Form-22 to the concerned owner of a vehicle immediately on the delivery of the vehicle.   No option is given either to manufacturer or its dealer to negotiate on their options, opportunities or conveniences.  It is for the particular owner to decide where his vehicle is to be registered permanently.  No dealer can have any say in this matter. Having promised to furnish the original Form-22 and temporary registration immediately after delivery of the vehicle, the subsequent U-turn taken by the Opposite Party is nothing but an utter disregard towards the duty and obligation of service cast toward the Complainant.  Failure to maintain such a standard ultimately cost the Complainant financially as well and deprived of the utility of the vehicle. Hence this complaint. 

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In their version pleaded that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the Complainant is guilty of suppression facts.  The Complainant purchased a Range Rover model sport 3.OL TDVG HSE vehicle bearing temporary Registration No.KA 05 TS 3160 with chassis No.SALWA2FE1EA 261592 and Engine No.0802560306DT from the Opposite Party’s Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) Vehicles showroom at Hosur Road, Bangalore for a total consideration of Rs.1,49,90,423/-during the month of June 2014.  But the payment was not made by the Complainant directly but through their vehicle financiers Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.  AT the time of booking the vehicle by the Complainant on 11.06.2014.  It was clearly conveyed to them that the registration of the vehicle can be done by the Opposite Party only in Bangalore or in open territories which do not fall in any other JLR dealer authorized territory and as per the terms of dealership agreement with the manufacturing company i.e., Tata Motors Limited., the Opposite Party is not authorized to make any outside state registration having other JLR dealers.  Upon violation of the said condition, the Opposite Party would become liable to pay huge compensation to the manufacturing company.   The Complainant informed that they intend to register the vehicle in Pondicherry by themselves and requested for a pro-forma invoice showing he vehicle value and the road tax applicable there.  Since the address in Pondicherry was not available then, as per the Complainant’s request, the Opposite Party raised ad handed over a Pro-forma invoice dt.11.06.2014 in the Complainant’s Bangalore address for the above model range Rover vehicle showing ex-showroom price of Rs.1,49,84,123/-and its applicable Pondicherry road tax amount, etc of Rs.1,07,000/- which totaled to Rs.1,50,91,123/-.  Thereafter the very next day, the Complainant again approached the Opposite Party saying that they wish to register the vehicle in Bangalore itself and requested to provide them a Pro-forma invoice with Road tax applicable in Bangalore, insurance amount and its available finance options.  Thereby the Opposite Party issued another Pro-forma Invoice dt.12.06.2014 to the Complainant with a net offer price of Rs.1,84,82,168/-.   The Opposite Party later received a delivery order dt.16.06.2014 from Kotak Mahinda Prime Limited enclosing a DD for an amount of Rs.1,50,13,167/- against the Complainant’s vehicle loan, which amount was credited to their Bank account the next day.  Thereupon the Opposite Party delivered the vehicle to the Complainant after obtaining the Temporary Registration No.KA 05 TS 3160 with Bangalore Address.  The Complainant again informed that they want to permanently register the vehicle at Puducherry and upon furnishing the company’s office address at Puducherry, the Opposite Party obtained a fresh temporary registration with No.KA 03 NT TR 843/2014-15 dt.18.06.2014 and also raised a fresh Form 21 showing the temporary address at Puducherry and endorsing the fresh temporary registration details.  The Complainant informed the Opposite Party that they would personally get the registration of the vehicle done from Puducherry, to this the Opposite Party replied to the Complainant that they had clear direction from the vehicle financier KMPL, that permanent registration is to be done by dealer and so the Opposite Party needed an approval letter from their financier, for registering the car by party and till such letter is handed over the Form No.22 and TR copy with Puducherry address and its Form 21 shall be held by the Opposite Party.  Based on the information by the Complainant that they would register he vehicle by themselves, the Opposite Party also returned the excess payment of Rs.22,774/- received from KMPL to the Complainant on 24.06.2014.  The Complainant’s decision to register the vehicle in Hyderabad on 26.08.2014 was only an afterthought and had this intention been told by the Complainant to the Opposite Party while making the vehicle enquiry, the Opposite Party would not even have sold the vehicle to the Complainant, since there is another JLR vehicle dealer in Hyderabad and the Opposite Party would be violating the dealership agreement by registering the vehicle in Hyderabad.  The Complainant’s intention to register the vehicle in Hyderabad was informed to the Opposite Party only on 26.08.2014 i.e. more than 2 months after delivering the vehicle to the Complainant after taking temporary registration.  With respect to the holding of Form No.22 it was clearly conveyed to the Complainant during June 2014 itself that the Opposite Party shall hand over the same upon the Complainant simultaneously upon handing over the approval letter from KMPL for registering the car by party.  But the Complainant intentionally delayed to get the approval letter from KMPL.   The Complainant had been using the vehicle in Hyderabad even after the expiry of the temporary registration period, without getting the permanent registration done, which is clear violation of Section 39 of M.V.Act.  Furthermore the incident of vehicle problem alleged to be experienced by the Complainant’s personnel on 28.09.2014 is totally wrong and denied.  It has been confirmed by the officials of M/s Inline 4 Motors Private Limited, the Authorized Dealer and service centre for Range Rover vehicles in Hyderabad, that the vehicle had external impact marks on both front right wheel and the rear right wheel which indicated that it was clear case of accident by side impact on the road.  It is clear that the damage caused to the Complainant’s vehicle was due to accident caused by negligent driving and not due to any mechanical problem of the vehicle.  If the Complainant had a valid insurance policy, the bill amount of Rs.4,12,685/- would have been paid by the Insurance Company.  But failure to permanently register the vehicle within the statutory period of one month or to extend the validity of the temporary registration, led to violation of policy condition and thereby the Complainant’s insurance claim was rejected. 
   The above situation occurred only due to the Complainant’s negligence and the same cannot be attributed to anybody else.  In the said circumstances, it was the Complainant’s duty to pay he repair charges and they alone are responsible for the costs incurred for its repair and replacement of parts.  The email dt.23.06.2014 sent by Complainant was replied by the Opposite Party in explicit terms that the Opposite Party needed an approval letter from the financier, for registering the car by party and until such letter is handed over, the Form 22 and Temporary Registration copy with Puducherry shall be held by Opposite Party.  During this time the Complainant’s intention was to register he vehicle in Puducherry but they kept delaying he procuring of the approval letter from KMPL for reasons best known to them.  After a lapse of More than 2 months, the Opposite Party received Complainant’s email dt.26.08.2014 informing their intention to register he vehicle in Hyderabad and to arrange to send the original copy of form No.22 to the Complainant simultaneously upon him handing over the approval letter from KMPL.  But the Complainant kept deaf ears to the requests of the Opposite Party.   The Complainant’s latent and lay attitude, the Opposite Party took up the matter with their manufacturing Company and upon their oral directions, he Opposite Party decided to release the original Form No.22 to Complainant and the same was dispatched to the Complainant’s Hyderabad address through Blue Cart courier on 20.09.2014.   Hence, it is clear that the said Form No.22 was Complainant’s possession much before the happening of the untoward accident to the vehicle on 28.09.2014 causing damage to the vehicle.  The Complainant’s claim that they had prepared a cheque for Rs.22,70,270/- dt.27.08.2014 for payment towards permanent registration fees, is only a cooked up story and hence denied in toto.  Even after the above experience of driving the vehicle without permanent registration, the Complainant finally got the permanent registration of the said vehicle done only on 07.11.2014.  Till such date, the vehicle was being blatantly used on road without any registration.     The Opposite Party delivered the subject vehicle to Complainant based on the delivery order issued by the financier, KMPL, who transferred the loan amount to their account.  As such, the Opposite Party is bound to follow the instructions given by the financier and one such instruction was to register the vehicle by the dealer and to note the Bank’s hypothecation on the registration certificate. In the above circumstances, since the Complainant wanted to do the registration certificate.   In the above circumstances, since the Complainant wanted to do the registration process by himself, the Opposite Party’s only request to Complainant was to procure the letter from the Bank, approving that vehicle can be registered by the party directly.  But the Complainant was throughout negligent in getting such a letter from the Bank.  The Opposite Party has been the sole authorized dealer of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles in Karnataka State from 2010 onwards and running business with 100% customer satisfaction till date.  They have sold around 750 vehicles till date and are giving prompt and satisfactory services to all customers.  There has not been a single instance in the past, where customer vehicle has run on road without registration or with expired temporary registration.   Any financial loss suffered by the Complainant on account of his deliberate ignorance and violation of law cannot be a ground for pointing fingers on Opposite Party.  As a dealer, the Opposite Party has fulfilled all their obligations to the Complainant.  After getting the temporary registration done in time.  Furthermore, after the expiry of the temporary registration validity, the Complainant should not have run the vehicle on road.   The Complainant is responsible for the financial loss suffered, mental agony and stress, if any.  Hence, the Complainant is not legally entitled to claim from Opposite Party any reimbursement of financial loss suffered by him or for any compensation.  The Complainant is a private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and claimed it was doing commercial activities in providing Visa services.   As admitted by the Complainant itself, they purchased the vehicle in the company’s name for the specific use and transport of their top officials and it is thus clear that the said purchase of the vehicle was only for commercial purpose having a direct access to the business of the Complainant.   That being the case, the present Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and on this ground itself the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The Complainant, Ms.Srividya Karthik has been filed her affidavit by way of evidence and closed her side.  On behalf of the Opposite Party, the affidavit of one Sri.Raju M has been filed.    Heard the arguments of both parties.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Negative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.   POINT NO.1:- As looking into the averments made in the complaint and also the version of the Opposite Party, it is not in dispute that the Complainant purchased the Range Rover Sport 3L from the Opposite Party on 16.06.2014 by raising  loan with Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited.

8. It is further case of the Complainant that the Complainant was informed by the Opposite Party that since the vehicle is a high end one, an advice was given to register the same in Pondicherry where the road tax is very less compared to rest of India. The vehicle was given with temporary registration No.KA-05 TS-3160.  Thereafter, the Complainant with an intention to use the vehicle at its head Office at Hyderabad has informed the Opposite Party to hand over Form 22 which is a prerequisite document to be produced at the time of getting permanent registration.  At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle the Opposite Party has promised to furnish original copy of the Form-22 and the temporary registration certificate little later.   In order to substantiate this, Ms.Srividya Karthik, in her sworn testimony, reiterated the same.  Except her interested version, the Complainant have not placed any supporting evidence.   To substantiate this contention that the Opposite Party advise the Complainant to get it register in Pondicherry where the road tax is very less compared to rest of India, thereby it is not proper to accept this contention.

9. Further as contended by the Complainant, the Complainant got it temporary registered in Bangalore by giving Temporary Registration No.KA-05 TS-3160 this is not in dispute. 

10.  Further to substantiate the case of the Complainant with an intention to use the vehicle at its Head Office at Hyderabad has informed the Opposite Party to hand over Form 22 which is a prerequisite document to be produced at the time of getting permanent registration.  At the time of taking delivery of the vehicle the Opposite Party has promised to furnish original copy of the Form-22 and the Temporary Registration Certificate little later. Even to substantiate this also Ms.Srividya Karthik, in her sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced mail dt.23.06.2014.  As looking into this, it clear that the Opposite Party requested to send the document.  For this mail the Opposite Party issued a reply through mail on 24.06.2014 informing that they needed approval from Bank for registering the car, inspite of this communication the Complainant have fails to provide the Bank Approval in time.  Due to this only there is a delay by sending Original Form 22, as the defence taken by the Opposite Party.  On the other hand, the Complainant have not placed any evidence to show that there is a deficiency of service or negligent act on the part of the Opposite Party.  Further as the evidence available on record, clearly goes to show that the Opposite Party produced the Form-22 and other requisite document for registration after getting those documents the Complainant got it registered the vehicle at Hyderaad by giving Temporary Registration No.KA-05 TS-3160, thereby there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The Complainant fails to prove that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party or there is a negligent act on the part of the Opposite Party.

11. The learned  Counsel for the Complainant argued that the Opposite Party fails to furnish the documents i.e., Form No.22 which is required for the purpose of registration of the vehicle Form 22 will be issued by the Manufacturer, thereby there is a delay and negligent on the part of the Opposite Party.  But the argument put forth by the learned Counsel for the Complainant cannot be acceptable.  Since as looking into the evidence placed by the parties, it is clear that the Opposite Party had furnished Form 22 and after getting the Form 22 the Complainant got it registered the vehicle at Hyderabad but the delay is caused for issuing Form 22 by the Opposite Party because of the reason that the Complainant have not furnished the Certificate Cum Financier as requested by the Opposite Party, thereby there is no delay or negligent on the part of the Opposite Party.  Hence, this point is held in the Negative.  

12. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 15^th day of May 2017)

    MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Ms.Srividya Karthik, who being Complainant has filed her affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. Copy of the Board Resolution dt.12.03.2015
2. Copy of the Release Order dt.10.06.2014
3. Copy of the Tax Invoice dt.17.06.2014
4. E-mail dt.23.06.2014
5. Reply dt.24.06.2014
6. Motor Vehicle Insurance Cover note
7. Copy of the Form KMV 19 (Temporary Certificate of Registration) dt.16.06.2014
8. Cheque dt.07.08.2014
9. Form M3 Order
10. Vehicle Condition Report Form/Job Record
11. Inline 4 Motors Private Limited
12. Legal Notice dt.27.11.2014
13. Legal Notice dt.04.12.2014
14. Registered with Acknowledgement
15. Opulentus Overseas Careers Private Limited Statement

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.Raju M, the Sr.Manager-Business Development and Authorized Signatory of the Opposite Party.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Copy of the Board Resolution dt.10.06.2015
2. Copy of the Form KMV 19 (Temporary Certificate of Registration) dt.16.06.2014
3. Copy of the Form 21 dt.16.06.2014
4. Copy of the Form KMV 19 (Temporary Certificate of Registration) dt.18.06.2014.
5. Copy of the Form 21 dt.18.06.2014 showing Puducherry address.

     MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT