This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 09-05-12               in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana, advocate for complainant,                   Sri Ch. Nageswara Rao, advocate for 1^st opposite party and of Sri Ch. Ramesh, advocate for 2^nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite parties to take return of TVS Flame SR 125 bike and for payment of Rs.72,452/- (being cost of the vehicle); Rs.10,000/- as compensation; Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.8,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.   The brief averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of TVS Flame SR 125 bikes for which the 1^st opposite party is its distributor.  The complainant on 16-04-10 purchased TVS Flame SR 125 bike for Rs.58,000/- from the 1^st opposite party with the financial assistance of M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Guntur.   On the date of purchase the 1^st opposite party promised to sell bike of 2010.   By deceitful means the 1^st opposite party sold the bike of 2008 instead of 2010.   The 1^st opposite party delivered the motor bike on 16-04-10, sale papers and temporary registration papers on 23-04-10 to the complainant.  Every new vehicle should be registered within a month from the date of temporary registration.   Subsequently the complainant approached the Road Transport Authority for permanent registration.   Authorities of RTA questioned the registration of vehicle manufactured in 2008.  The complainant then approached the 1^st opposite party of selling old vehicle.    The 1^st opposite party admitted their mistake orally and requested the complainant to return original papers.   The complainant returned all the documents and requested the 1^st opposite party for change of vehicle.  The 1^st opposite party received those papers and failed to give new vehicle or refund the amount with interest.   Due to inaction of the 1^st opposite party the complainant is unable to get his vehicle registered.   Due to non registration the complainant faced several traffic problems and paid penalties.   The complainant is also unable to insure vehicle.   The complainant subsequently learnt that model of the said vehicle is not available as manufacturing of those vehicles was stopped.   The opposite parties sold the vehicle to the complainant by deceitful means for unlawful gain.    The complainant incurred expenditure for carrying out repairs as the vehicle gave trouble on number of occasions.   The opposite parties committed deficiency of service by selling defective vehicle i.e, old model vehicle.  The complainant in all paid Rs.72,452/- to his financier.   The said vehicle did not contain year of manufacture on the chassis and it is against the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.  The opposite parties thus committed deficiency of service.

3.  The contention of the 1^st opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The 1^st opposite party did not sell defective vehicle to the complainant or any person.   The registering authority has to register the vehicle within one month from the date of purchase as per the invoice issued by the 1^st opposite party.   The registering authority has nothing to do with date of manufacture.   The sale promoters of the opposite parties never advised the complainant to purchase particular vehicle.   The complainant himself purchased TVS Flame SR 125 bike on seeing and knowing its features.   The 1^st opposite party informed the year of manufacture to the complainant and after satisfying the same the complainant purchased it.   The documents filed by the complainant themselves show that there was no mis-representation on behalf of the opposite party.   There is no rule in the MV Act to contain the year of manufacturing on the chassis.   The vehicle sold to the complainant did not suffer from manufacturing defect.   The complainant without getting his vehicle registered filed this complaint to have unlawful gain.  The 1^st opposite party is ready to get the vehicle registered if the complainant incurs charges for the delay in registering the vehicle.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.  The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The 1^st opposite party is not an agent of the 2^nd opposite party.   The present complaint is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.   The two wheelers manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party are sold on principle to principle basis to its various dealers across the country.   The motor cycles were taken up for dispatch to dealers after quality control test in all respects.   The warranty is for a period of 24 months or upto 30,000 kms of usage in the hands of the original purchaser whichever is earlier.   The vehicle purchased by the complainant is still within warranty period at the time of filing the complainant.  The complainant used the vehicle in question extensively.   The subject vehicle did not suffer from manufacturing defect.   It is the responsibility of the complainant to get the services from time to time stipulated in service coupons.   When any vehicle is covered by warranty conditions the consumer is not entitled for replacement of vehicle.  The complainant’s vehicle was attended to by the 1^st opposite party from time to time whenever the complainant brought it for service. The complainant set up a case by suppressing material facts.  TVS Flame is an impeccable, proven, quality product.  The subject vehicle is a product of extensive, laborious, research and developmental activities of the 2^nd opposite party.   The opposite parties are not in any way responsible for personal choice regarding selection of vehicle by purchasers including the complainant.   The complaint is frivolous and vexatious.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.  Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of the complainant were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

6.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1.  Whether the 1^st opposite party sold the subject vehicle by     misrepresentation?

        2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

        4.  To what relief?

7.    POINT No.1:-    The 1^st opposite party furnished invoice (Ex.A-7) to the complainant on 16-04-10, sale papers and temporary registration papers on 23-04-10 to the complainant (Ex.A-2 and A-4) as seen from the complaint and affidavit of the complainant.   In    Ex.A-4 sale certificate month and year of manufacture was mentioned as  10/2008.    By 23-04-10 the complainant was aware of the year of manufacture of the vehicle covered by it.    The temporary registration bearing No.AP 07 TNTR 0824 was valid from 23-04-10 to 22-05-10.    The complainant is working as principal.   It is the case of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party represented to him that the vehicle covered by Ex.A-7 was of the year 2010.   It is the case of the 1^st opposite party that it never so represented.   Ex.A-7 invoice was also dated 23-04-10 but not 16-04-10 as contended by the complainant.  Under those circumstances, the complainant getting delivery of the vehicle on 16-04-10 did not arise.    No prudent person will take any vehicle against his choice/selection.   The complainant ought to have noticed the year of manufacturing as 2008 on seeing temporary registration papers.    Mentioning the month and year of manufacture as 10/2008 in Ex.A-4 falsified the contention of the complainant regarding misrepresentation pertaining to the year of manufacture.   The complainant ought to have refrained himself from taking the subject vehicle on seeing the year of manufacture.    The documents filed by the complainant himself disproved his case of misrepresentation.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

8.  POINT No.2:-      It is the contention of the complainant that the registration authorities refused to assign permanent registration number contending the year of manufacture.   The 1^st opposite party relied on section 45 of MV Act, 1988 and it reads as follows:

“Refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration:-

                The registering authority may, by order, refuse to register any motor vehicle, or renew the certificate of registration in respect of a motor vehicle (other than a transport vehicle), if in either case, the registering authority has reason to believe that it is a stolen motor vehicle or the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of this act or of the rules made there under, or if the applicant fails to furnish particulars of any previous registration of the vehicle or furnishes inaccurate particulars in the application for registration of the vehicle or, as the case may be, for renewal of the certificate or registration thereof and the registering authority shall furnish the applicant whose vehicle is refused registration, or whose application for renewal of the certificate of registration, is refused, a copy of such order, together with the reasons for such refusal”. 

9.     The complainant did not file coy of order of the registering authority showing the reason for refusing registration.   It is the contention of the opposite party that the registering authority has nothing to do with the year of manufacture any vehicle and they have to register the vehicle within a month of purchase if applied by its owner.  Under those circumstances, the contention of the complainant is devoid of merit. 

10.   Running a vehicle without permanent registration is against the provisions of MV Act.    The police authorities are amply empowered to deal violations of MV Act by any person.   For this the complainant has to blame himself but not the opposite parties.  

11.   It is the contention of the complainant that he gave original papers to the 1^st opposite party without any acknowledgment.   By that time the complainant was aware of misrepresentation alleged to have been made by the 1^st opposite party.   Such contention of the complainant is against behaviour of normal prudent man.  The                     1^st opposite party expressed its willingness to get the vehicle registered if the complainant pays the delay charges. 

12.   Burden is on the complainant to prove that the vehicle covered by Ex.A-7 suffered from manufacturing defect.       The complainant did not file any document to show that the vehicle covered by Ex.A-7 suffered from manufacturing defect or the number of times he got the vehicle repaired.    In the absence of those documents the contention of the complainant that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects cannot be accepted.   The complainant in para III of the complaint at page 3 mentioned the following:          “Both opposite parties 1 and 2 committed deficiency of service by selling defective vehicle i.e., old model vehicle”.    In view of our findings, on point No.1 and in view of the above recitals made in the complaint, we are of the view that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and answer this point against the complainant.

13.  POINT No.3:- In view of findings on point 1 and 2, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation much less the amount claimed. 

14. POINT No.4:- In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 21^st day of May, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:     NIL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT