BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF JULY, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.71/2021

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Saloni Agrawal,

D/o Ashok Kumar Agrawal,

Aged about 28 years,

Residing at No.777,

HBR Layout,

(Complainant Rep by Sri.Karthik B.Y, Adv)

V/s

M/s ZK Motors,

Registered office at: No.1,

R.T.Nagar Post,

Rep by its Proprietor. …..OPPOSITE PARTY-1

M/s Hemanth Motors,

No.17B/9, 10, 11 &12,

Opp Rail Wheel Factory,

Doddaballapura Road,

(Opposite party no.2 represented by Sri.Janardhan Reddy, Adv)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to deliver new BS6TAVS NTORQ 125-SBT DISC MATTE two wheeler to the complainant with registration and to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, hardship, loss of interest and inconvenience suffered and such other reliefs.

2. The opposite party no.1 is the agent, who had undertaken to register two wheeler vehicles with RTO.  The opposite party no.2 is the dealer of two wheeler vehicles. The opposite party no.1 is placed ex-parte.

3. It is the case of the complainant that during the negotiation/enquiry the opposite party no.1 had informed the complainant that, the Ex-showroom value of TVS NTORQ 125 SBT DISC MATTE two wheeler was Rs.66,885/- and by including the tax, insurance and other charges it comes to total of Rs.82,610/- and the opposite party no.1 would arrange for the same for a sum of Rs.80,000/- including free fitting and helmet.  Hence, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.80,000/- on 13.03.2020 to the opposite party no.1 and opposite party No.1 had delivered the above said vehicle with temporary registration No.KA.03.TC.319.  Thereafter, even in spite of repeated requests been made by the complainant to the opposite parties to handover the RC of the vehicle, the opposite parties postponed the same.  Further on 28.09.2020 at about 7.30 p.m the above said vehicle was stolen and thereafter it was traced by the police.  Thereafter, the complainant learnt that BS4 Vehicle registration was stopped by the Government and opposite party no.1 did not inform about the same to the complainant, but recently Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed for registration of BS4 vehicle.  Hence, the complainant approached on her own to RTO for getting her vehicle registered and at that time she came to know that the temporary registration number issued by the opposite party no.1 was a fake one.  Hence, the complainant did not take the vehicle on road.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

4. The opposite party no.2 had denied the averments of the complaint and contended that if the transaction alleged by the complainant would have been taken place then the complaint should have been only against opposite party no.1 and unnecessarily the opposite party no.2 was made as party.  Further, the subject vehicle was handed over to opposite party no.1 by opposite party no.2 way back on 12.03.2020, for which the opposite party no.1 had paid the value of the same by way of bank transfer dt.12.03.2020.  Hence, it was the duty of the complainant to follow all procedural aspects as contemplated.  Further, the complainant would have taken all precautionary measures prior to purchase of the vehicle.   Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

5. To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief and got marked Ex.P1 to P15 documents.  The Authorized Signatory of opposite party-2(RW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

       6. None filed the written arguments. 

7. Heard the arguments.

         8. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?

    ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the  

         compensation as sought ?

     iii) What order ?

 9.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

10. POINT NO.1:- It is admitted by the opposite party no.2 that it had handed over the subject vehicle to the complainant by receiving the consideration on 12.03.2020.   PW1 and RW1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.  In support of the evidence of PW1, she also produced EX.P1 & P2 receipts for having paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- each in favour of opposite party no.1 on 09.03.2020 and 10.30.2020 respectively.  EX.P3 is the Invoice dt.12.03.2020 issued by the opposite party no.2 for having received a sum of Rs.66,885/- as consideration of the vehicle sold infavour of the complainant.  Hence, the amount paid by the complainant to opposite party no.1 had been reached to opposite party no.2 as appears in EX.P3.  Ex.P4 is the two wheeler package policy with regard to the insurance is concerned.  The complainant has also produced EX.P5 the copy of the police complaint, EX.P6 is the copy of the FIR, EX.P7 is the copy of the vehicle release letter dt.01.10.2020 to establish that the vehicle was stolen and it was traced later on.

11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite party no.1 and 2 colluded together and had issued a fake temporary registration certificate and thereby they are liable to pay the compensation and the complainant cannot run the vehicle without the same was registered by the RTO.  Further it is the duty of the opposite party no.1 & 2 to provide a genuine temporary registration number.  EX.P8 is the quotation issued by opposite party no.1 dt.27.10.2020 stating that RTO had extended the time till 13^th November 2020 and it would provide life time road tax receipt and challan thereon for having remitted an amount of Rs.9,050/-.  The complainant has also produced a letter vide EX.P10 addressed to the customers including the complainant by opposite party no.1, in which it is stated that the registration process of BS4 vehicle has been delayed by the RTO due to technical reasons, and the same would be resumed from                          16^th October 2020.  EX.P12 is the Customer Inquiry Quotation Form issued by opposite party no.1, in which it is stated that the total price was Rs.82,610/-.  EX.P15 is the legal notice dt.29.09.2020 issued to opposite party no.1 & 2 seeking to refund the amount of Rs.62,035/- i.e., full amount of IDV and a sum of Rs.9,050/- collected towards registration/life tax and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. towards mental agony.

12. Even though the legal notice been issued, the opposite party no.2, it did not reply to the notice.  Since, there was a fake temporary registration number given by the opposite party no.1 & 2 the complainant was not able to register the vehicle in the office of RTO to get permanent registration number.  Further, the complainant had paid the amount to opposite party no.1 and thereafter the opposite party no.1 had paid the amount to opposite party no.2 as consideration in respect of the subject vehicle.  Therefore, the opposite party no.1 & 2 are answerable as to why a fake temporary registration number was given.  It is the duty of the opposite party no.1 & 2 to assist the complainant by giving genuine temporary registration number to get a permanent registration number.  The opposite party no.1 & 2 failed to provide the same.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.1 & 2.  Hence, we answer this point in affirmative. 

13. POINT No.2:- The complainant sought a direction to the opposite parties to deliver new BS6TVS NTORQ 125-SBT DISC MATTE two wheeler to the complainant with registration.  The complainant had booked to buy BS4 TVS NTORQ 125-SBT DISC MATTE two wheelers, as appears in EX.P1, P2, P12 and P14.  According to PW1, the vehicle given to the complainant is still in her possession.  The vehicle was delivered on 13.03.2020 infavour of the complainant.  No doubt there is default on the part of the opposite party no.1 & 2 in giving fake temporary registration number.  Admittedly, now BS4 vehicle is not available with the dealer and the manufacturer cannot manufacture the said vehicle.  Hence, we feel the complainant might have sought for BS6 vehicle.  Admittedly the market price of BS6 vehicle will be more than the BS4.  Hence, it cannot be directed to the opposite parties for replacing the vehicle as sought.  We feel for the fault of the opposite parties, they have to reimburse the amount paid by the complainant with interest.  As per EX.P1 & P2 receipts, it appears that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 09.03.2020 and another sum of Rs.40,000/- on 10.03.2020.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for interest for the said amount of Rs.80,000/- from 10.03.2020 at the rate of 9% p.a.  Further, the complainant has sought a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony suffered.  Admittedly, the complainant was deprived of using the vehicle from 13.03.2020 i.e., on the date of the vehicle was delivered in favour of her.  It is the case of the complainant that when she approached RTO in getting her vehicle registered she came to know about the fake temporary registration number.  Therefore, even though she had paid the amount she did not use the vehicle.  Further, the opposite parties made the complainant to run pillar to pillar and to file present complaint.  Definitely, she had suffered mental agony because of the act of the opposite parties.  Hence, we feel the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony undergone and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.  Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative. 

14.  POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate 9% p.a. from the date of payment i.e., on 10.03.2020 till realization. 

The complainant shall return the subject vehicle TVS NTORQ 125 SBT DISC MATTE two wheeler in temporary registration No.KA.03.TC.319.

Further, the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony suffered and litigation cost. 

The opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days.  In case, the opposite parties fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.30,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 18^th day of July, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Kumari.Saloni Agarwal, the complainant has filed her affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Original payment receipt bearing No.1442 dt.09.03.2020.

2. Original payment receipt bearing No.1444 dt.10.03.2020.

3. Vehicle invoice dt.12.03.2020.

4. Copy of the insurance bearing No.BBCA00281939488/00.

5. Copy of the police complaint dt.31.08.2020.

6. Copy of the FIR bearing Crime No.0258/2020 dt.31.08.2020.

7. Copy of the vehicle release letter dt.01.10.2020.

8. Four letters of ZK motors dt.01.10.2020, 16.10.2020 and 27.10.2020.

9. Quotation bearing No.339 of ZK motors.

10. Letter of RTO dt.09.11.2020.

11. Letter of ZK motors dt.31.08.2020.

12. Legal notice dt.29.09.2020.

13. Original two postal receipts.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri.Nagesh Kollappa, the opposite party has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•