….Opposite Parties.
This C.C came before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.M. Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for the complainant; Sri.H. Sree Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.1; Sri.M.V.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.3; Notice to opposite party No.2 unserved; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the opposite party No.1 is the dealer of TATA Motors and appointed the opposite party No.2 as their sub-dealer for Khammam and opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of TATA Motors. The complainant submitted that he intended to purchase the motor car made of TATA Indica DLS V2 BS III, having learnt the same, opposite party No.2 has approached the complainant and convinced him to purchase TATA Indica DLS V2 BSIII on 28-06-2010 vide the serial No.477, for a price of Rs.3,61,950/- and the complainant paid the amount of Rs.1,37,500/- and balance of the price was financed by M/s Indusind Bank, Jaggaihpet. The complainant further submitted that on the same day the opposite party No.1 & 2 had issued TR bearing No. AP09TW T/R 7321 from the show room of opposite party No.2 at Khammam and opposite party No.1 issued user manual and guarantee card purporting to the said car in favour of complainant and assured that they will issue original invoice in order to get the car for registration. The complainant also submitted that having trusted the version of opposite parties 1 & 2, the complainant is plying the car on the road on temporary registration, the said car to be registered before the R.T.A., for which the dealer’s original invoice is yet to be issued by opposite party No.1. And also submitted that in the mean time the complainant came to know that opposite party No.2 has filed an Insolvency Petition in Khammam Court by winding-up the business and the entire matter is within the knowledge of opposite party No.3 and the I.P. was filed particularly against the opposite party No.1. The complainant further submitted that having kept the I.P. in mind the opposite party No.1 is postponing of issuing the invoice for the car in question in spite of repeated demands made by the complainant, due to which the complainant is facing mental agony, pain and suffering. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant issued legal notice on 02-08-2010, even after receipt of the notice, as the opposite parties paid deaf-ear, the complainant approached the Forum.
2. On behalf of the complainant the following documents have been filed and marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.
Ex.A.1 - Original cash receipt vide Sl.No.477, issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A.2 - Copy of Temporary registration of Car bearing No. AP 09TW T/R
7321.
Ex.A.3 - Tax Receipt issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A.4 - Office copy of legal notice issued to opposite parties 1 to 3.
Ex.A.5 - Postal receipts (3 Nos.)
Ex.A.6 - Served acknowledgements of O.P. 1 & 3.
Ex.A.7 - Photocopies of service manual issued by opposite party No.1.
3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite part No.1 appeared through their counsel and simply filed vakalath but failed to file counter. The matter is deemed as no counter on their behalf.
4. Notice of opposite party No.2 unserved. The opposite party No.3 appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In the counter opposite party No.3 submitted that for some strange and extraneous reasons, the name of Mr.Prashanth Sibal, Regional Manager, Sales, South India of Tata Motors Ltd., has been impleaded as the opposite party No.3 in the proceedings, although no cause of action arises against the opposite party No.3 herein. Also submitted that the allegations of the complainant is against opposite party No.1 & 2 and not against the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.3 has not sold the car in question to the complainant nor has been a party to the transaction occurred between the complainant and opposite party No.1 & 2, hence the opposite party No.3 neither a proper nor necessary party for adjudication of the proceeding. And also submitted that the car TATA Indica DLS V2 BSIII which has been manufactured by TATA Motors Limited on 01-05-2010 and has been subsequently sold its dealer, opposite party No.1. The subject car was dispatched from the plant of TATA Motors Limited on 26-05-2010 and was received at the opposite party No.1 on 08-06-2010. The said dealer then purportedly sold the said car to his broker/agent, the opposite party No.2 not authorized by TATA Motors Ltd. And further submitted that once a car is sold and dispatched to the authorized dealers the transaction gets completed between the TATA Motors Ltd. and its authorized dealer in respect of that car, in the instant case, the subject car has been sold by an unauthorized agent/broker of the dealer to the complainant. Therefore there is no privity of contract between the TATA Motors Ltd. or its officers and the complainant in respect of the said transaction for sale of the car and to provide the invoice copy. And also submitted that the complainant has not made any grievances in respect of sale transaction to the vehicle against opposite party No.3 and the cause of action arising out of the transaction as regards to the supply of invoice copy, then the same may be against the opposite parties 1 & 2, as such prayed to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.3.
5. On behalf of the opposite party No.3, no documents have filed.
6. The complainant filed written arguments and the counsel for opposite party No.3 filed a memo to treat the contents of their counter as their written arguments.
7. Perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
- To what relief?
Point No.1 :-
The case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 is the dealer of TATA Motors Limited and appointed the opposite party No.2 as the sub-dealer for Khammam and opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of TATA Motors. The opposite party No.2 approached the complainant and convinced him to purchase TATA Indica DLS V2 BSIII, for a price of Rs.3,61,950/- and the complainant paid the amount of Rs. 1,37,500/- and balance of the price was financed by M/s Indusind Bank, Jaggiahpet. The opposite party No.1 & 2 has issued the Car with TR bearing No. AP09TW T/R 7321 from the show room of opposite party No.2 at Khammam and at that time they assured that the opposite party No.1 will issue original invoice with in few days to get the car registration. After that opposite party No.2 filed an Insolvency Petition in Khammam Court by winding-up the business and such Insolvency Petition particularly filed against opposite party No.1, having kept the I.P. in mind the opposite party No.1 is postponing of issuing the invoice for the car in question and the opposite party No.2 is not taking any steps for issuing the same. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased the car from the opposite parties 1 &2. As per the submission made by the complainant the opposite parties 1 & 2 have to issue the original invoice of the car made of TATA Indica DLS V2 BSIII with in few days from the date of purchase to get the car registration before RTA, Khammam. As the opposite parties No.1 & 2 fail to issue the above invoice facing much troubles to ply the car on the road without having registration. And also in written arguments the complainant submitted that the complainant is not at all a party to the proceedings in I.P.No.10/2010 nor said down payment made to a tune of Rs.1,37,500/- which is already paid by the complainant not shown in the I.P. amount.
We have carefully gone through the record and observed that Car in question was purchased by the complainant on 28-06-2010. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties 1 & 2 to issue original invoice papers within 3 days from the date of purchase to the complainant. But from the above record we observed that the opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to issue invoice papers after laps of one month of purchase, even after filing of the complaint before this Forum. And also observed it is impossible to ply a car on road without having valid registration, which will cause hardship and mental agony to the owner of the car. Except the opposite party No.3, the opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to appear before the forum and kept silent.
It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties 1 & 2 failed to issue invoice papers of the car which the complainant facing troubles, is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2, as such this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. The case against the opposite party No.3 is dismissed basing on the elaborative counter filed by the opposite party No.3 as their liability is limited that they are manufacturing the car and sold to their dealer and also the complainant has not pleaded any grievance against them.
Point No.2:
In the result, the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to issue original invoice papers of the car made of TATA Indica DLS V2 BSIII in respect of TR bearing No. AP09TW T/R 7321. And also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards damages and also directed the opposite party No.1 to issue the papers and pay the damages within one month from the date of this order, failing which the damages shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of payment.
Dictated to the Junior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 17th day of February 2012.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
KHAMMAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant: -None-
Witnesses examined for opposite party: -None-
Exhibits marked for complainant:-
Ex.A.1 - Original cash receipt vide Sl.No.477, issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A.2 - Copy of Temporary registration of Car bearing No. AP 09TW T/R
7321.
Ex.A.3 - Tax Receipt issued by opposite party No.1
Ex.A.4 - Office copy of legal notice issued to opposite parties 1 to 3.
Ex.A.5 - Postal receipts (3 Nos.)
Ex.A.6 - Served acknowledgements of O.P. 1 & 3.
Ex.A.7 - Photocopies of service manual issued by opposite party No.1.
Exhibits marked for opposite party:
-Nil-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
KHAMMAM
