Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/60/2015

G.Moorthi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Pvt ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.Prabakaran

29 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 14.01.2015

Date of Reservation      : 15.09.2022

Date of Order               : 29.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 60/2015

THURSDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Mr. G. Moorthi,

S/o. V.K. Ganapathy,

No.35/11, City Link Road,

Secretariat Colony,

Adambakkam,

Chennai-600 088.                                                        ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

 

1.M/s. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

   (Head Office),

   Rep by its Chief Manager,

   Plot No. 1, Sector-3,

   IMT, Manesar,

   Gurgoan (D.t)

   Haryana-122050.

 

2.M/s. Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

   (South Regional Office),

   Rep. by its Chief Regional Manager,

   Unit-01, 1^st Floor, West Wing,

   Golden Height, 59^th c. Cross,

   4^th M-Block, Rajaji Nagar,

   Bangalore,

   Karnataka- 560010.

 

3.M/s: Honda Motor Cycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.,

   (Zonal Office),

   Rep. by its Chief Zonal Manager,

   3^rd and 4th Floor,

   No. 10, GJ. Complex,

 

    First Main Road,

    CIT Nagar,

    Chennai-600 035.

 

4.M/s. Manasarovar Honda,

   Rep. by its Senior Sales Executive,

   Old No. 137, New No.105,

   100, feet Velachery Bipass Road,

   Velachery,

   Chennai-600 042.                                                     ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. A. Prabhakaran

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. s. Bruno Cruz

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund a sum of Rs.61,770/- being the cost of the vehicle purchase by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation towards damages and mental agony caused to the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant states that he is a practising Advocate at High Court Judicature and all subordinate courts within Chennai and for his convenience in connection with his professional activities, he booked Honda Activa grey colour two wheeler 2014 model on 20.01.2014 with the 4^th Opposite Party showroom by paying the total cost of the vehicle Rs.61,770/- out of which Rs.54,770/- paid in cash and the balance of Rs.7000/- was adjusted by exchanging the old vehicle - Hero Honda Splender Reg.No.TN 50 B 7882 ( 2002 ) model. Moreover, necessary address proof along with forms were submitted on 22.01.2014 for registration of the vehicle to the 4^th Opposite Party with Tax Invoice Bill No.MC13005184. Further the Complainant states that the vehicle booked is of 2014 Model and the same was reflected in the insurance policy with the Engine No.JF50ET0170798, Chassis No.ME4JF501MDT70470. In Spite of paying the total cost of the vehicle and signing the necessary forms for registration of vehicle the 4th Opposite Party chose not to register the vehicle for which the Complainant made several calls and sent emails to the 4th Opposite Party but of no use. Hence the Complainant was constrained to approach Assistant Sales Manager then after the 4^th Opposite Party registered the Complainant Vehicle before the Meenambakkam RTO, Chennai on 31.01.2014. Subsequently post registration the vehicle was delivered and necessary registration certificate was issued containing the details of the vehicle purchased to the Complainant during the 2^nd week of February 2014 with the Registration No.TN 22 CP 1402. However to the Complainant shock and surprise the manufacturing date and year of the vehicle is shown as December 2013 instead the Complainant booked "2014 Model'' and the same was also reflected in all the invoices and insurance policy issued by the 4th Opposite Party but in the registration certificate the model of the vehicle is referred as "December 2013". The Complainant states that the attitude on the part of the 4th Opposite Party is unwarranted, untenable, condemnable and claims it as nothing but fraud. To address this issue the Complainant approached the 4^th Opposite Party in charge person and informed about the error had been crept in the registration certificate but even after repeated requests and queries being made the 4^th Opposite Party was not chosen to correct the manufacturing date in the registration certificate. On 24.02.2014 the 4^th  Opposite Party called the Complainant to surrender the registration certificate for making necessary corrections but no steps were taken to either rectify the error crept in the registration certificate or stated any reason in that regard. The Complainant states that on entrusting the original registration certificate aforesaid approached the 2nd Opposite Party but of no use instead making the Complainant to run from pillar to post with all the efforts ending up in vain. Henceforth the Complainant opted to issue legal notice upon the deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint.

3.    Written Version filed by the 4^th Opposite Party is as follows:-

The 4^th Opposite Party Submits that on 20.01.2014, the complainant booked white colour Activa 110 CC DLX Model in the fourth Opposite Party Show room and he paid a sum of Rs. 61,770/- being the total cost of the vehicle and accessories. It is false and unfounded that the Complainant booked the 2014 Model and was not particular about the manufacturing year of the vehicle and didn't mention anything about the year of manufacturing in the Booking Form dated 20-01-2014. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has booked the Vehicle on 20-01-2014 and opted to buy the available Vehicle in the showroom at the time of booking, since the Complainant wanted the vehicle within 15 days with the registration for that the Complainant paid entire sale price of the vehicle and given necessary address proof and necessary form for the registration of the vehicle was signed and submitted on 22.01.2014 and tax invoices also was issued to the Complainant.

The 4^th Opposite Party states that the complainant booked 2014 Model and the same was reflected in the invoice are false and unfounded moreover the complainant booked white colour Activa 110 CC DLX Model, subsequently the complainant wanted only grey colour Activa 110 CC DLX instead of white colour Activa 110 CC DLX Model hence the 4th Opposite Party agreed and sold the grey colour vehicle with Engine No. JF50ETO1707470 and Chassis No. ME4JF501MDT70470 to the complainant from the stock available in the Showroom at the time of booking the vehicle. We do not know the vehicle model is reflected in the insurance policy as 2014 model. If there is any error in the policy, the complainant has to approach the insurance company for necessary rectification. The 4th Opposite Party denies the claim of Complainant that they has not taken any step for the registration of vehicle instead the vehicle was registered o on 31.01.2014 as TN 22 CP 1402, at RTO Meenambakkam and it is pertinent to note that the complainant has paid the entire sale amount only on 22.01.2014 thereafter taken steps for registration and the same has been completed within 5 working days. After completing the formalities for registration of the vehicle, informed the complainant to take the delivery of the vehicle. However the complainant has chosen the date to his wish and taken the delivery of the vehicle on 06.02.2014. The 4^th Opposite Party submits that after receiving the RC Book from the RTO Office, informed the complainant to collect the RC Book from their office. The complainant also collected the same. The 4^th Opposite Party denies that the Complainant booked the 2014 model and the same was reflected in all of the invoices and insurance cover note and policies issued to the Complainant. In the registration certificate there is no reference about the model of the vehicle, but the reference about the vehicle is the class of vehicle, maker's name, type of body, month & year, No.of cylinders, chassis number, engine number etc.

The vehicle in question sent to RTO in the month of January 2014 and the registration authority has mentioned 12/2013 against the column "Month & Year" as per the norms and rules. The complainant has approached this opposite party's Showroom and forcefully handed over the certificate and compelled this opposite party to change the month and year of the vehicle in the Registration Certificate. This Opposite Party was politely explained the complainant that the vehicle in question is manufactured in the month of December 2013 and sold to him in the month of January 2014 and the same is reflected in the registration certificate. If the complainant is opted 2014 manufactured vehicle at the time of booking, this opposite party definitely conveyed him that he would get the 2014 manufactured vehicle only after 60 days from the booking date, because the plant of the 1st opposite party are also thoroughly inspected for control systems, quality checks and test drive before passing through factory works for dispatch to the authorised dealers for sale of the vehicles. Moreover the Honda Activa vehicles are highly demanded in the market. The 4th opposite party submits that they have taken all sincere efforts to convince the complainant that they do not change the certificate as to the wish of the complainant but the complainant was adamant in getting change of the certificate. The complainant who failed to take back the certificate, has rushed to this Hon'ble forum with false and frivolous allegations.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-11 were marked. The Opposite Parties1 to 4 submitted its Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 no documents was marked.

 

 

Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the complaint?

3. To what relief, the complaint is entitled?

Point No.1 :-

Upon perusal of records the undisputed facts are that the Complainant booked Honda Activa white colour two wheeler on 20.01.2014 with the 4th Opposite Party showroom by paying the total cost of the vehicle as seen in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 and there is no dispute over the payments from both the Complainant and Opposite Parties. It is pertinent to note that in both the Exhibits the colour mentioned is White and nowhere it is mentioned that the year of manufacturing is 2014. As per the Ex.A-3 the Tax Invoice copy No.V1307144 dated 22.01.2014 providing the details like grey colour vehicle with Engine No.JF50ET0170798 , Chassis No.ME4JF501MDT70470 and as per Ex.A-5 it is evident that the Complainant took the delivery of the said vehicle on 06.02.2014. But on careful examination of records it is understandable that as per the additional Document filed by the Complainant states that the year of manufacturing mentioned in the Insurance policy is 2014 and the same as even seen in the Ex.A-6 EW Registration Form the manufacturing year mentioned as 2014. After these two documents confirmation, the Complainant is under the impression that the vehicle he booked is of 2014 model and waiting for the same to be reflected in vehicle registration certificate as his registration falls under Meenambakkam RTO. To the Complainant surprise in the Registration Certificate the Year of Manufacturing mentioned as 2013 instead of 2014 as seen in Ex.A-12. Due to which the Complainant raised repeated requests with the Opposite Parties to change the Manufacturing year in Registration Certificate and moreover surrendered the same on 24.02.2014. The said issue happened only due to the gross negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Parties allowing the Complainant to suffer. Because without the Insurance copies and Invoice copies the RTO will not process the vehicle registration. It is the Opposite Parties duty to check and submit the relevant documents ensuring the details were correct henceforth the vehicle registration should be correct in every means why because once the details were furnished in Registration Certificate cannot be altered. In this aspect the Opposite Party should be vigilant enough by avoiding the damage and mental agony caused to the Complainant. Hence Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided in Point No.1 that the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 had committed deficiency in service and the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 are liable to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally  directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand  Only) towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 29^th of September 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	20.01.2014	Copy of Cash receipts
Ex.A2	20.01.2014	Copy of Booking Form
Ex.A3	22.01.2014	Copy of Tax invoices
Ex.A4	22.01.2014	Copy of Tax invoices
Ex.A5	06.02.2014	Copy of Delivery Challan
Ex.A6	-	Copy of Certificate of Registration
Ex.A7	17.11.2014	Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.A8	-	Copy of A.D Card
Ex.A9	-	Copy of R.C Book
Ex.A10	-	Copy of ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance
Ex.A11	-	Copy of complaint regarding service

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT