Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/172/2015

M.Karthi, S/o A.Manogaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sairam Motors - Opp.Party(s)

C.M.Krishna Kumar

24 Sep 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 13.04.2015

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 24.09.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.172/2015

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

                                 

M. Karthi,

S/o. Mr. A. Manogaran,

No.7/14, 5^th N.S.K. Street,

Soolpunalkarai,

Erukkencherry,

Chennai – 600 118.                                                        .. Complainant.           

                                                                                               ..Versus..

 

1. Sairam Motors,

Rep. by its Proprietor

Mr. Pachaiyappan,

No.882, Sakthi Towers,

M.T.H. Road,

Padi,

Chennai – 600 050.

 

2. India Yamaha Motor (P) Ltd.,

Rep. by its Vice President

Mr. Ramkumar,

T.V.H. Beliciaa Towers,

Tower I, Block No.94,

8^th Floor, M.R.C. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 028.                                               ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant           : M/s. C.M. Krishnakumar &

                                                           another

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party  : M/s. S. Vidhya

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : M/s. JP. Karunakaran & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to return back the sum of Rs.90,252/- being the amount deposited by the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards hiring charges for the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings with cost of the proceedings.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he booked Yamaha Motor Bike F2SF1 (2GS2) Astral Blue (YBCM6) with the 1^st opposite party on 31.12.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- and another sum of Rs.80,252/- totalling a sum of Rs.90,252/- towards the price of the motor bike.  On 18.01.2015, the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle shall be taken for registration by the company as the registering process done through online.  The complainant submits that when the vehicle was taken for registration.  The RTO officials came for inspection before the registering the vehicle the official refused to register the vehicle as the invoice engine number is G3C8E067539 but the vehicle delivered to the complainant contains Engine No.G3C8E067540.  The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to rectify the mistake or to deliver the motor bike having the engine number mentioned in the invoice repeatedly.   But the opposite parties turned deaf ears.   Till date, the opposite parties has not taken any steps to rectify the mistake i.e. delivery of motor bike as such of invoice.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:17.03.2015 but the opposite parties has not sent any reply.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:-

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that he is a dealer of the 2^nd opposite party and is only involved in sales and marketing of products of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party states that he through their staff and Company Sales Manager visited the complainant at his residence for several times to replace the engine but the complainant disallowed the 1^st opposite party from replacing the engine.   Further despite several requests from the 1^st opposite party, the complainant also refused to bring the vehicle to the office of the 1^st opposite party to replace the engine.   Further, though the 1^st opposite party was ready and willing to replace the engine, the complainant maliciously and with an ulterior motive neither let the staff of the 1^st opposite party to replace the engine at the premises of the complainant nor did he bring the vehicle to the office of the 1^st opposite party.   Further, the complainant has failed to furnish any documentary proof to the effect that the 1^st opposite party refused to co-operate with the complainant.   Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:-

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the complainant purchased a Yamaha FZSFI (2GS2) Astral Blue (YBCM6) motorcycle on 31.12.2014 and the vehicle was delivered on 18.01.2015 from the 1^st opposite party who is a dealer of the 2^nd opposite party and was delivered to the complainant after completing the process of P.D.I. (i.e. Pre-Delivery Inspection).  The 2^nd opposite party states that there is no defect was alleged in the motorcycle by the complainant.   The 2^nd opposite party states that he does not sell its motorcycles directly to any individual customer and that the 2^nd opposite party sell the motorcycles to its dealers only.  The Dealer Sales Agreement entered into between the 2^nd opposite party and its dealers governs the relationship between the Company and its dealers.   The said agreement stipulates the relationship between the two on principal-to-principal basis.  In other words, the 2^nd opposite party cannot be burdened with or held liable for any representation/s or action/s or act/s or omission/s, if any, on the part of the 1^st opposite party or any other third party other than the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party states that there is an inadvertent typographical error in the engine number of the motorcycle as mentioned on the Invoice issued to the 1^st opposite party which has been passed on further to the Invoice issued to the complainant.    The 2^nd opposite party states that the 2^nd opposite party repeatedly tried to approach the complainant offered for a mutual settlement, however soon after the receipt of complaint from the complainant got to know about the error became adamant and egotistically wishes to continue with the pending litigation.  The 2^nd opposite party is still willing to provide the correct invoice with the correct engine number and is ready to bear the expenses of registration certificate, only if the complainant wishes to put his feet down and settle the matter on reasonable terms.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.  Proof affidavit of the 2^nd opposite party is filed and document Ex.B1 is marked on the side of the 2^nd opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of a sum of Rs.90,252/- the price of the Motor Cycle as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service with cost of Rs.30,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant and 1^st opposite party Counsel also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he booked Yamaha Motor Bike F2SF1 (2GS2) Astral Blue (YBCM6) with the 1^st opposite party on 31.12.2014 and paid a sum of Rs.70,089.08/- and another sum of Rs.10,162.92/- totalling a sum of Rs.80,252/- as per Ex.A1 towards the price of the motor bike.  On 18.01.2015, the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the vehicle shall be taken for registration by the company as the registering process done through online.  Further the contention of the complainant is that when the vehicle was taken for registration.  The RTO officials came for inspection before the registering the vehicle; the officials refused to register the vehicle as the engine number in the vehicle and invoice differs.  The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to rectify the mistake or to deliver a new motor bike having the same engine number mentioned in the invoice repeatedly.  But the opposite parties turned deaf ears proves deficiency in service.  Till date, the opposite parties has not taken any steps to rectify the mistake i.e. delivery of motor bike as such of invoice.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:17.03.2015 as per Ex.A5.   But the opposite parties has not sent any reply proves deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming refund of the price of the motor bike with compensation.

7.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that admittedly, the complainant purchased a Yamaha FZSFI motorcycle on 31.12.2014 and the vehicle was delivered on 18.01.2015 after completing all the formalities through online after due process of Pre-Delivery Inspection.  But it is not denied that the RTO Officials has not registered the vehicle since the engine number in the motor bike differs from the invoice proves deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that there is no defect muchless, manufacturing defect in the motor cycle inorder to refund the amount or to replace the motor cycle.  But it is not denied that immediately after booking the motor bike, the opposite parties issued invoice as per Ex.A1 with specific engine number but delivered a motor cycle with different engine number for registration proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The RTO also is not able to register the motor cycle. Further the contention of the opposite parties is that due to inadvertence typographical error in the engine number caused in invoice and motor bike, the opposite parties tried their level best to correct the same.  But the complainant was not co-operative.  But the opposite parties has not produced any record as hey called the complainant and the motor bike for due rectification of defect related to engine number and processing registration proves the deficiency in service.  Till date, it is seen from the records and oral argument that the motor bike was not registered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable shall refund the price of motor cycle of Rs.80,252/- being the cost price of Yamaha Motor Bike F2SF1 (2GS2) Astral Blue (YBCM6) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of this complaint to till the date of this order (i.e.) 24.09.2019 and a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.80,252/- (Rupees Eighty thousand two hundred and fifty two only) being the cost price of Yamaha Motor Bike F2SF1 (2GS2) Astral Blue (YBCM6) along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date presentation of this complaint (i.e.) 13.04.2015 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 24.09.2019 and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of September 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

		Copy of fax invoice
		Copy of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited vehicle insurance cover note
		Copy of delivery gate pass
		Photo copy of the engine of the complainant’s vehicle
		Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 & 2
		Copy of acknowledgment card of the 2nd opposite party for the receipt of the complainant’s legal notice
		Copy of acknowledgment card of the 1st opposite party for the receipt of the complainant’s legal notice

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  

Ex.B1

17.02.2012

Certified true copy of the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of India Yamaha Motor Private Limited in its meeting held on February 17, 2012

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT