By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The complaint in short is as follows:- On 25-03-2019, The complainant purchased a motor cycle - Honda shine – from the show room of the first opposite party , who is the dealer of the second opposite party , the manufacturer. The year of manufacture of the above said vehicle was shown as 2019 march in insurance certificate issued at the time of delivery of the vehicle. But the first opposite party did not hand over documents like sale certificate, purchase bill and other related documents pertaining to the new vehicle to the complainant at the time of delivery. The registration of the vehicle was done by the first opposite party.
2. But, subsequently when the complainant received Registration certificate, the manufactured year of the vehicle was stated as 2018 July. Immediately this matter was informed to the first opposite party by the complainant but the first opposite party was turned down. According to the complainant, the first opposite party cheated him with clear intention. The first opposite party did not replace the vehicle by handing over a new vehicle manufactured in the year 2019. Even though the complainant demanded to refund Rs.86,300/- as the price of purchased vehicle, the first opposite party do not considered the demand of the complainant. Hence the complainant approached this Commission for the redressal of grievance. The complainant prayed for replacing a new vehicle manufactured in the year 2019 and also for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, hardships caused by the unfair acts of the first opposite party.
3. The complainant admitted on file and notices were issued to the opposite parties. The first opposite party entered appearance but the second opposite party, the manufacturer received notice remained absent thus became exparte.
4. On 14-01-2021 Commission recorded no version from the side of the first opposite party. But subsequently the first opposite party filed version along with IA 44/21 in order to receive the version and same was allowed by the Commission.
5. The first opposite party filed version and narrated his case. It is admitted by the first opposite party that complainant purchased motor cycle from the show room of the first opposite party. It is incorrect that first opposite party did not hand over documents of the vehicle to the complainant at the time of delivery. The first opposite party is used to hand over every documents to the customers at the time delivery. The sale of vehicles without supporting documents is illegal. The first opposite party provided temporary permit, service book, helmet to the complainant at the time of delivery. The temporary permit and the R.C book given along with vehicle showed the year of manufacturer as 2018.
6. In the version it is stated that the first opposite party is not providing insurance coverage. Insurance policy coverage was subscribed by the insurance company directly from the complainant. If any mistake is occurred in policy document, the first opposite party was not responsible. It is also stated in the version that the complainant did not make the insurance company as opposite party in this proceedings.
7. It is stated in the version that in the early month of 2019, the first opposite party was selling the vehicles manufactured in the year 2018. The complainant was fully conversant with this fact and he purchased the vehicle from the first opposite party after conceding it. These facts were suppressed by the complainant and thereby approached this Commission. According the first opposite party, complainant bargained the price of the vehicle and as a result, the first opposite party reduced Rs.4000/- from the actual price of the vehicle. This reduction of Rs.4000/-, from the price of the vehicle was provided solely on the ground that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2018. There is nothing beneficial to the first opposite party by stating manufacturing date as 2019 in the insurance policy certificate of the complainant’s vehicle.
8. According to the first opposite party, in order to get registered, the owner of a new vehicle should produce all necessary original documents along with the vehicle before the motor vehicle department. So the complainant has to produce documents like aadhaar card, Temporary permit, invoice of the vehicle, insurance certificate. It can be assumed that the vehicle number KL-71-G-125 of the complainant is registered after complying the above formalities. If any discrepancy is detected in the document related to the vehicle, the motor vehicle department would have been rejected the registration of the vehicle. The first opposite party issued purchase bill to the complainant. Moreover copy of bill purchase and all relevant documents were filed through online before the government institution.
9. In the version it is stated that the show room of the first opposite party completely damaged in the flood. So many vehicles, computer and bill books were damaged. This fact is known to the complainant. So the first opposite party could not produce copies of relevant documents of vehicle before the Commission.
10. It is added in the version that the first opposite party is having ‘good will’ in business and the complainant never approached him to refund the price of the vehicle. The date of such meeting was not mentioned in the complaint. According to the first opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party and complainant has no right to get reliefs as sought for.
11. The complainant and the first opposite party filed affidavits. The complainant filed documents and same marked as Ext. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is the copy of insurance certificate issued by united India Insurance Company Ltd to the complainant. Ext. A2 is the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle issued by motor vehicle department to the complainant. Ext. A3 is the copy of warranty registration card issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A4 is the copy of service coupon issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A5 is the copy of the motor insurance policy schedule of the vehicle. Ext.A6 is the copy of the email reply to the complaint registered by the complainant. No document were produced by the contested opposite party.
12. The complainant and the first opposite party heard in detail, perused affidavits and documents. The following points arised for consideration :-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party?
- Relief and cost?.
13 Point No.1 & 2
The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a motor cycle bearing registration number KL-71-G-125 from the first opposite party on 25/03/2019. At the time of purchase it was assured by the first opposite party that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2019. But when the complainant received the registration certificate of the vehicle, the year of manufacturer was stated as ‘2018’ in it. According to the complainant , he was cheated by the first opposite party and the first opposite party gained unlawful profit by selling the vehicle manufactured in the year 2018 to the complainant under the pretext of manufactured in the year ‘2019’. According to the complainant the price of the vehicle manufactured in the 2018 is normally lower than the vehicle manufactured in the year ‘2019’. So there is unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party.
14. The complainant’s specific case is that the subscription of insurance coverage was done by the first opposite party. It can be assumed that normally an owner of a newly purchased vehicle will not use his vehicle without having insurance coverage. Moreover the complainant contended that all documents and information required for the insurance coverage was given by the first opposite party to the insurance company.
15. It is stated by the complainant that he did not receive purchase bill, temporary permit except helmet and service book from the first opposite party at the time of delivery of vehicle and also informed that documents will be handed over later.But according to the first opposite party, at the time of delivery of vehicle entire documents were handed over including temporary permit and purchasing bill. It is the case of the first opposite party that the year of manufacturer of the vehicle was ‘2018’ and same was stated in purchase bill and temporary permit. If this was the real situation, then the complainant would not have receive the vehicle on the day of purchase as, he got opportunity to verify the discrepancy regarding year of manufacture, especially when Ext. A1 and A5 documents showed the year of manufacture as ‘2019’. Normally a man will prefer to purchase new model of vehicle from the show room. So the case of the complainant is more preferable than the case of the first opposite party.
16. It is stated in the version that the complainant never approached with any complaint. But complainant stated in his affidavit that he approached the first opposite party on 06/06/2019. Later, on the contrary the opposite party stated in the affidavit that complainant came to the show room on 06/06/2019 and improperly behaved. So it can be considered that the complainant had grievance after registration of vehicle i.e on 04-06-2019 due to the act of the opposite. Moreover, at the time of delivery of the vehicle he had not provided with safeguard and crash guard. He repeatedly contacted the first opposite party to get provided with these things, but turned down by the first opposite party. When his attempts were became futile then he approached head office the Honda Company by way of e mail. Ext. A6 shows that there was complaint submitted to the manufacturer by the complainant against first opposite party. By considering Ext. A6 document and facts of the case this Commission can find that the first opposite party was not properly handed over document and equipments pertaining to the vehicle to the complainant at the time of delivery. So the contention of the first opposite party that all documents handed over to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle cannot be believed.
17. It is contented by the complainant that the first opposite party agreed to hand over temporary , permit , purchase bill and other documents required for the registration of the vehicle to the office of R T O with the help of the first opposite party’s agent . According to the complainant by doing so the first opposite party could manage to hide the real content of the documents from the vicinity of the complainant. The complainant stated that his father, who is an illiterate, went to R.T.O office for registration. But registration could not complete because of non production of necessary documents by the first opposite party. The registration procedure completed after the father of complainant reached at R.T.O office for the second time. These submissions are not denied by the first opposite party in his affidavit. According to the first opposite party registration could be completed if the owner of vehicle is personally present. But the complainant stated that the registration procedure was done in his absence. This statement was not contradicted by the opposite party. In the version it is stated by the first opposite party that if any discrepancy or anomaly was found in the documents produced for registration, the Motor Vehicle Department would have returned the vehicle denying registration. It is admitted by the both side, that Ext. A1 and A5 shows the year of manufacturer as 2019. According to first opposite party the vehicle is manufactured in the year 2018 and documents like purchase bill and temporary permit carried the same. At the same time the complainant stated that the agent of first opposite party involved in the registration proceedings. So after evaluating the entire evidence it can be seen that the first opposite party involved in the procedure of subscription of insurance coverage as well as registration of vehicle. So these facts are also favours the case of the complainant.
18. In this complaint no case was put forwarded by the complainant that there was reduction of Rs.4000/- in the price of purchased vehicle. But in the version it was contended by the first opposite party that the complainant bargained the price of vehicle and as a result there was reduction of Rs.4000/- in the price of the vehicle. According to the first opposite party he reduced the price of the vehicle because it was manufactured in the year 2018. But in the affidavit, the complainant explained that there was no reduction of price. According to the complainant he sold his old vehicle to the first opposite party to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) and also fixed Rs.86,500/- (eighty six thousand and five hundred only) to the new vehicle . The complainant hypothecated new vehicle in Max value Credit and Investment Limited, Thrissur for receiving additional fund for the purchase of new vehicle. He also paid Rs.5,000/- as processing fee for the loan of 65,500/- (Sixty five thousand and five hundred only). In connection with the selling of vehicle no documents were produced by the first opposite party to support his case. According to the first opposite party the entire documents were destroyed due to flood occurred in July, August 2019. But the complainant stated that entire documents related to vehicle uploaded in the software named Vaahan by the first opposite party even before the alleged time of flood. So there is no difficulty to produce documents before the Commission by the first opposite party. Then the loss of records due to flood cannot be taken in to consideration because no evidence is brought before the commission to that effect. So, it can be construed that the first opposite party was hiding facts before the Commission by wilfully withdrawing from adducing necessary evidences.
19. By analysing the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the available evidences adduced by the both parties, it can be seen that there is unfair trade practice on the side of first opposite party by selling the vehicle manufactured in the year 2018 under the pretext of manufactured in the year 2019 to the complainant. Hence the case of the complainant stands proved and the commission allows the complaint as follows:-
1) The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for the practicing unfair trade practice against him.
2) The opposite party is directed pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
3) The vehicle is in the possession and use of the complainant right from the beginning and so no replacement of the vehicle is required. No relief was sought against the second opposite party by the complainant.
The first opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation .
Dated this 27th day of June, 2022.-
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of insurance certificate issued by united India Insurance Company Ltd to
the complainant.
Ext.A2: Copy of registration certificate of the vehicle issued by motor vehicle
department to the complainant.
Ext A3: Copy of warranty registration card issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext A4: Copy of service coupon issued by the first opposite party to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil. C.V, Member
VPH
