Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.           The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that complainant has purchased a new vehicle one APE 501 PaXXWBBS 4 3 W diesel engine no.S8E8854978 Chassis no.MBX0003BfWF656302 Model 2018 on 17.10.2018 from Opposite Party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 17.10.2018. The complainant has purchased the said vehicle through hire purchases agreement from IndusInd Bank Consumer Finance Division, Moga PLM Branch Limited for Rs.2,30,000/- out of which complainant has paid payment of Rs.50,312/- to Opposite Party No.1 at the time of purchase of said vehicle. Thereafter, complainant used to pay the installments regularly to IndusInd Bank Consumer Finance Division Moga PLM Branch Limited and complainant had paid Rs.1,92,094/- through installment. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, complainant has requested Opposite Party No.1 to hand over the original RC regarding said vehicle, but complainant was told by Opposite Party No.1 that he will post the said RC through registered post to complainant. But till now complainant has not received the said RC so far. Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 several times, but to no effect. Legal notice was also served upon Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 on 06.01.2022 through registered post, but to no effect. The Opposite Parties were asked many times to admit the rightful claim, but they have refused to do so. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to deliver the RC of the vehicle one APE 501 PaXX WB BS 4 3 W diesel engine no.S8E8854978 Chassis no.MBX0003BfWF656302 Model 2018.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.2 lacs as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as costs of the complaint.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Upon service of notice, none has come present on behalf of opposite party no.1, hence opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and filed the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that at the outset it is submitted that complaint is barred by limitation since the complainant has filed the present complaint in the year 2022, whereas, admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle in the year 2018. In this regard, it is mentioned that Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”) which explicitly states that no Consumer Commission shall admit any complaint which has been filed beyond the period of two years from the date of cause of action arose in favour of the complainant. The alleged cause of action in favour of the complainant in the year October, 2018, when he purchased the vehicle, however the present complaint has been filed in the year 2022 which explicitly barred u/s 69 of the Act. The present complaint ought to be dismissed on this ground alone. Further alleges that answering Opposite Party is involved in the business of manufacturing of scooter and motorcycles and is one of the world leaders in its sector. Further alleges that the present complaint pertains to an inter se dispute between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 from whom the complainant has purchased the vehicle (APE 501 PAXX WB BS IV 3W Diesel) in the year 2018. However, the failure of the Opposite Party No.1 to supply the original RC to the complainant, as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint has given rise to the present proceedings. Answering Opposite Party has no role whatsoever in the present proceedings and no specific relief or averment has been made by the complainant in the present complaint qua the answering Opposite Party. No services of whatsoever nature has been rendered by the complainant from the answering Opposite Party and accordingly the consumer complaint is not maintainable qua the answering Opposite Party. Further alleges that complainant approached the broker of Opposite Party No.1 which is an authorized dealership of Opposite Party No.2 herein for purchase of a vehicle and in order to fund the purchase of said vehicle, the complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement with IndusInd Bank Consumer Finance Division, Moga, PLM Branch Ltd. After scrutinization of the requisite documents provided by the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 sold a Vehicle bearing Chassis No.MBX0003BFWF65 Model 2018 (“the vehicle”) on 17.10.2018 to the complainant. Further alleges that answering Opposite Party is involved in the business of manufacturing of Scooters and Motor Vehicles and is not an authority that can provide the RC to the desired Customers. It is the sole liability of the Opposite Party No.1 to supply the Original RC as it has sold the vehicle to the complainant herein which is an admitted fact. The transactions and dealings between the dealer and answer Opposite Party are on principal-to-principal basis, dealer is not an agent of the company for any purpose. The vehicles manufactured by the answering Opposite Party are purchased by the dealer to resale the same to its own customers. Hence, the answering Opposite Party is not responsible for any internal understanding that took place between the Opposite Party No.1 and complainant herein regarding the handing over of the original RC. The answering Opposite Party herein has not provided any service to the complainant as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant has acquired the services of the Opposite Party No.1 for purchase of a vehicle. Therefore, the complainant has not locus standi to file the present complaint against answering Opposite Party. Further alleges that the present dispute only pertains to the Opposite Party No.1 and the complainant. The answering Opposite Party do not have any role to play, moreover, there is no specific averment or relief claimed by the complainant qua the answering Opposite Party in the present complaint. The complainant has miserably failed to establish the deficient service qua the answering Opposite Party. Neither any cause of action has been made out against the answering Opposite Party nor are there are any averments specifically against the answering Opposite Party alleging any deficiency in service. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint against answering Opposite Party is made.

4.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9.

5.       To rebut the evidence of complainant, Opposite Party No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Vaidehi Kamat, Head Legal Ex.OP2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2/B & Ex.OP2/C.

6.       During the course of arguments ld. counsel for both the parties have mainly reiterated the same facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply. The case of the complainant is that has purchased a new vehicle one APE 501 PAXX WB BS IV 3 W diesel on 17.10.2018 from Opposite Party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 17.10.2018. The complainant has purchased the said vehicle through hire purchases agreement from IndusInd Bank Consumer Finance Division, Moga PLM Branch Limited for Rs.2,30,000/- out of which complainant has paid payment of Rs.50,312/- to Opposite Party No.1 at the time of purchase of said vehicle. Thereafter, complainant used to pay the installments regularly to IndusInd Bank Co  nsumer Finance Division Moga PLM Branch Limited and complainant had paid Rs.1,92,094/- through installment. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, complainant has requested Opposite Party No.1 to hand over the original RC regarding said vehicle, but complainant was told by Opposite Party No.1 that he will post the said RC through registered post to complainant. But till now complainant has not received the said RC so far.

7.       Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of ld. counsel for the complainant on the ground that complainant approached the broker of Opposite Party No.1 which is an authorized dealership of Opposite Party No.2 herein for purchase of a vehicle and in order to fund the purchase of said vehicle, the complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement with IndusInd Bank Consumer Finance Division, Moga, PLM Branch Ltd. After scrutinization of the requisite documents provided by the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 sold a Vehicle bearing Chassis No.MBX0003BFWF65 Model 2018 (“the vehicle”) on 17.10.2018 to the complainant. Further contended that Opposite Party no.2 is involved in the business of manufacturing of Scooters and Motor Vehicles and is not an authority that can provide the RC to the desired Customers. It is the sole liability of the Opposite Party No.1 to supply the Original RC as it has sold the vehicle to the complainant. The vehicles manufactured by the answering Opposite Party are purchased by the dealer to resale the same to its own customers. Hence, the Opposite Party no.2 is not responsible for any internal understanding that took place between the Opposite Party No.1 and complainant regarding the handing over of the original RC.

8.       But on the other hand, Opposite Party No.1 did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings.  In this way, the Opposite Party No.2 has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint.  Moreover, it is the responsibility of the opposite party no.1 to supply the RC to the complainant, which they failed to supply till date, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. Moreover, the complainant till date has not received the RC from the Opposite Party No.1, so complainant is having continuing and recurring cause of action to file this complaint before this Commission. Since the opposite parties have failed to provide the possession of the RC of the vehicle in question and as such, there is certainly deficiency in service of the part of the opposite parties.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the present complaint against Opposite Party No.2-Paggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd and partly allow the complaint of the Complainant against Opposite Party No.1-Platinum Vehicles and direct Opposite Party No.1-Platinum Vehicles to deliver the RC with regard to the vehicle APE 501 PAXX WB BS IV 3 W of the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Consumer Commission.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.