The Complainant has purchased Motor-bike bearing Model No. YAMAHA YZF R15 F, bearing chassis No. ME1RGO62AH0053290 and Engine No. G3C7E0139651by making payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- in cash to the O.P Rahul Automobile against money receipt No. 06 dated 7.12.2017. It has issued sale intimation dated 7.12.2017 in favour of the complainant and the O.P authorized dealer Global Motors who issued service record bearing no. 250036 dated 7.12.2017 and Tax Invoice dated 7.12.2017. Sale certificate in FORM 21, Under Rule 47(a)(d) of Central Vehicle Rules, 1989, was issued in the name of the complainant. Also sale invoice was issued in the name of the complainant. Also initial certificate of compliance with pollution standard, safety standard, of component quality and roadworthiness by India Yamaha Motor Private Ltd. dated October 2017 was issued. The O.P M/s. Global Motors issued temporary certificate of registration bearing registration no. WB-74 TC 8861 dated 4.5.2018 remaining valid  upto 02.06.2018. After expiry of temporary certificate of registration the complainant repeatedly went to the office of the opposite parties requesting them to make arrangement for issuance of permanent registration certificate against purchase of said motor-bike. After expiry  of the period of said temporary certificate the complainant on 18.7.2018 plying bike on the road was asked by Siliguri Police Commissionerate Traffic Department to show permanent registration certificate of motor-bike but the complainant failed to show permanent registration certificate to the traffic department.  As a result of which he was charged with fine and paid.  On acceptance of the fine amount, compound slip  bearing no.59055 dt. 18.7.2018 was issued to the complainant.  After  the above incident the complainant went to the office of the opposite party, but it was replied by the O.P that against same chassis no. ME1RG062AH0053290 of the said motor-bike of the complainant,  registration certificate no. UP70EB9106 was already issued in the name of one Kanchan Kumari, S/o. Pradip Saroj. In the registration certificate engine number of the vehicle was different.  Chassis number of the complainant and Kanchan Kumari is the same. So, there has been inherent laches on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant pointed out such inherent laches debarring the complainant to get registration certificate.  Also the complainant requested the respondent through mail on 12.6.2018 vide complaint no. IC38702X7WO for issuing permanent registration certificate to the complainant, but request of the complainant was not resolved.  Thereafter the complainant has filed complaint before this Forum which was registered as C.C no. 38/2018. Subsequently the same has been withdrawn for rectification. The complainant finding no other way filed the present complaint against the O.P. for recovery of Rs.1,35,000/- by taking back said motor-bike bearing  same chassis number which was sold out to one Kanchan Kumari.  Consequently, he was not in a position to ply the vehicle on the road.It is the duty and responsibility of the authorized dealer of YAMAHA to take back the said motor bike and to refund the amount when the chassis number of the motor-bike was same to  different persons residing in U.P.  He could not ply the vehicle on the road due to rejection of granting permanent registration certificate by the R.T.O in respect of the motor-bike purchased  by the complainant.  Therefore,  he has prayed for an Award directing the O.P to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- after taking back the said motor-bike from the complainant.  Besides that, he has prayed for an Award of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, deficiency in service and suffering mental agony caused by the respondent to the complainant.  Further, he has prayed for litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.  Therefore, he has prayed for awarding a sum totaling Rs.2,85,000/- against the O.P.

                The O.P nos. 1 and 2 have filed written version stating, inter alia, that the complainant has filed the present case against the O.P with an ulterior motive and to derive an unlawful  pecuniary  connection based upon falsehood and figment  of imagination beyond comprehension.  The O.P Rahul Automobiles is the authorized  dealer of  India Yamaha Motor Private Limited. The Opposite parties sold Yamaha Motor-cycles to the complainant against necessary receipts, and other documents/papers.  The complainant has been provided temporary certificate of registration of the said asset to the complainant.  There is no negligence in its its sale process.  Also there is no unfair trade practice.  Therefore, there is no question of harassment and deficiency in service.  There has been use of similar chassis number with another motor-cycle which got registered with Allahabad R.T.O.  Upon enquiry the O.P came to know that the said motor-cycle was sold to one Kanchan Kumari by M/s. Ashish Auto of Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh.  So, M/s. Ashish Auto of Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. They are necessary parties to the case.  Also in this complaint Indian  Yamaha Motor Private Ltd. made mistake and error on the part of  manufacture while manufacturing motor-cycles with same chassis number. Therefore, the O.P Global Motors have communicated with all necessary documents to address issue and come to a logical conclusion to provide service to the complainant. So, the instant complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

                On the pleadings of the parties the following points are required to be adjudicated by this Forum in the interest of justice and fair play.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION :-

1)        Was there any deficiency in service on the part of O.P nos. 1 and 2 ?

2)          Whether O.P nos. 1 and 2 are authorized dealers of Yamaha Motor-bike ?

3)          Is there any liability and responsibility upon the O.Ps being the

              authorized dealer of Yamaha Motor-cycle when the complainant fails

to get permanent registration certificate of the motor-bike purchased

by the complainant but rejected by the RTO due to registration of the

self-same chassis number in favour of Kanchan Kumari in U.P ?

4)          Can the complainant ply the motor-bike unless mistake crept in the

              chassis number of the motor-bike belonging to the complainant be

              informed to the RTO Jalpaiguri enabling the complainant to get permanent

              registration certificate ?

5)         Whether the complainant will get compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- after

             returning of the motor-bike to the O.Ps due to remaining

             Idle of the same for want of permanent registration certificate ?

6)        To which other relief or reliefs the claimant is entitled to both in law

             and equity ?

                                                                DECISION  WITH REASONS :-

              All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and combined discussions.

            Both the parties have filed Brief Notes of Argument supported by their documents in a summary procedure.This Consumer Forum bankingupon the documents supported with written argument shall decide their substantial dispute involved in the instant case.It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased Yamaha branded motor-bike by making payment of Rs.1,35,000/- in cash against proper receipt.The respondent Global Motors admittedly is the sub-dealer of Yamaha Motor-bike. The sub-dealer Global Motors have issued service record, tax invoice, sale certificate form-21 in the name of the complainant. Also they have issued certificate of compliance with pollution standard, safety standard of component quality and roadworthiness byIndia Yamaha Motors Private Ltd.Further, M/s. Global Motors issued temporary certificate of registration bearing registrationno. WB-74 TC-8861 dated 4.5.2018 remaining valid till 2.6.2018.

The dispute arose when the self-same chassis was sold by Yamaha Motor-bike to Kanchan Kumari, S/o. Pradip Saraj.As a result, permanent certificate

Of registration was issued in the name of one Kanchan Kumari in Uttar Pradesh.Due to registration of another Yamaha Motor-bike in the same name of Kanchan Kumari, Motor-bike purchased bythe complainant. Haibul Ali could not get registration.It isthe sole liability and responsibility upon the authorized dealer to get permanent registration certificate in favour of the complainant respecting motor-bike purchased from him.Therefore, the plea of not making RTO, UP, RTO, Siliguri, Jalpaiguiri and Kanchan Kumari is unwarranted. The O.P being the authorized dealer of Yamaha Motor-bike is under sole obligation to ensure that the complainant can ply the motor bike on the road. Otherwise, it will be purposeless to keep the motor-bike by the complainant in idle condition. It was noticed by the complainant to the authorized dealer about his difficulty on plying bike but they did not care to discharge their liability in getting rectification of the chassis of motor-bike owned by to the complainant. TheP.S, said to have taken rectification measure after the case has been instituted against them.. When complained it is not feasible and practicable to know about the same chassis number of motor-bike soldout by Yamaha through dealer to different persons in U.P.

There is inherent deficiency in service from the authorized dealer being the O.Ps herein to take rectificationmeasure in consultation with company uphold reputation and technical flaw.The authorized dealer committed inherent lapses in taking rectification measure in respect of same chassis number of two motor-bike beingsold – one to the complainant and another to Kanchan Kumari in U.P.The Regional Transport Authority following the rule of law cannot register same chassis number one in the name of the complainant and another in the name of Kanchan Kumari in U.P to avoid future and legal complications.

Due to non-production of the permanent registration certificate of the motor-bike the complainant was slapped with fine for his no-fault liability.It is quite natural that he cannot ply the vehicle unless the permanent registration certificate is being granted by the Regional Transport Authority to the complainant. Such practice is the unfair trade practice as defined in deficiency of service.There is no explanation from the end of Yamaha Motor-bike company as to why the complainant being the consumer shall suffer due to act of the company. So, the O.P being the authorized dealer of Yamaha Motor-bike are responsible for the act of Yamaha Company issuing same chassis number provided to two motor-bikes manufactured by them. Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act defines ‘deficiency’ in wider term.Deficiency means shortcoming or inadequacy in the manner of performance which is required tobe maintained by or under law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in presence of contract or otherwise in relation to any service. Therefore, the plea of non-joinder of necessary party taken by the authorized dealer being the O.Ps herein are not tenable in law. As per provision of section 14(1)(hb) of Consumer Protection Act the O.Ps being authorized dealer shall compensate loss or injury suffered by the consumer for charging fine against the complainant for expiry of temporary registration certificate the motor-bike Yamaha and not being able to ply the same on the road by. Out of fear, prestige and dignity he could not ply the vehicle on the road for continuing fine to be borne by the complainant. In no way the authorized dealer can shift his responsibility upon the ‘Yamaha’ bike company. andthe R.T.O, U.P.There is no fault of Kanchan Kumari to whom the same chassis number motor-bike was sold.On good faith Kanchan Kumari has registered the same chassisnumber motor-bike by the R.T.O in U.P.The company should have resisted the authorized dealer ofYamaha motor bike prior to issuance of temporary registration certificate to the complainant to verify about any fault respecting the goods sold out by the authorized dealer from Yamaha Motor company.In other words, the motor-bike sold out to the complainant by the authorized dealer should not suffer from any defect, fault, imperfection or shortcoming in any manner whatsoever.Therefore, the O.P has taken the steps to rectify the mistakes after institution of the instant complaint case by the complainant against the authorized dealer. It is the procedural lapses on the part of the opposite party to sit tight over the matter till the consumer case being instituted against it.There is inherent laches, negligence and dereliction of duty in providing service to the complainant,Subsequent to institution of the suit the rectification measure was taken by the authorized dealer Yamaha Motor-bike purchased by the complainant, but that should have been rectified at the time of sale of the Motor-bike to the complainant i.e. keeping the motor bike in idle condition results. Pecuniary loss of the complainant for negligenceand deficiency of the O.Ps.

In the result, it is necessary that the O.P being the authorized dealer shall take back the Yamaha Motor-bike sold out to the complainant and refund a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment. Further, the authorized dealer of Yamaha Motor-bike shall pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment, deficiency in service and suffering mental pain, agony etc. to the complainant including fine paid to Police for not having permanent registration number .Moreover, the O.Ps shall pay litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant.

There is deficiency in service by the authorized dealer from whom the complainant has purchased motor-bike and there is wear and tear, loss of longevity, rusting of mechanical parts of ,motor bike including tyre.

It is admitted that the O.Ps are authorized dealer of Yamaha Motor Bike.They used to purchase it from the company who manufactured the above branded bike and gave chassis number and other documents in relation to the said motor bike.In other words the authorized dealer should not have sold the said bike to the complainant when the said manufacturing company manufactured two motor-bikes of same chassis number.It is within the parameter of Yamaha Motor Company as to how many number of motor-bikes are being manufactured and sold out. They could ascertain as to which bikes are being manufactured and on which date.

In this regard it is clarified that the authorized dealer cannot shoulder his liability and responsibility upon Kanchan Kumar and Allahabad R.T.O, U.P.Rather the liability and responsibility is fixed upon the authorized dealer being the instrumental authority and conducting business. The complainant shall not run from pillar to post and to make everyone party to the case for getting substantial and legal right guaranteed under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.

It is fact that after expiry of the period of temporary registration certificate the complainant cannot ply the motor-bike on the road without having the permanent registration number.Consequently that motor-bike remains in idle condition at his house. Out of fear he could not ply on the road at his risk that may be liable to pay fine to be imposed by the Police Authority. In other words, it is deemed to be violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule framed thereunder.

As a result, the case succeeds.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Hence, it is

                                           O  R  D  E  R  E  D

That the Consumer case no.42/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps shall refund a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- to the complainant Haibul Ali with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of  payment. Also the complainant shall return the motor bike purchased from the O.Ps with all relevant documents.  Further the O.Ps shall pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment, deficiency in service and suffering mental agony etc. to the complainant including the fine borne by the complainant for not having permanent registration certificate from R.T.O and to pay litigation cost of Rs15,000/-. The said order shall be carried out forthwith.

            Besides, the O.Ps shall deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account, DCDRF, Jalpaiguri within one month from this date in default to deposit interest @ Rs.100/- per day.  If the Award is complied with by the Opposite parties after payment of the awarded amount the complainant shall hand over the above motor-bike and other relevant documents to the opposite parties.

               Let the original documents, if any, filed by the parties, be returned to them on proper receipt.            

Let a plain copy of this final order be supplied to the parties free of cost on proper acknowledgment or be sent by ordinary post, in terms of Rule 5(10) of West Bengal Consumers Protection Rules 1987.