District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 190/2022.
Date of Institution:5.4.2022.
Date of Order:23.05.2023.
Manoj Prabhakar Singh son of Shri Ram Pyare Singh R/o House No. MCF-6522, Gali No. 36, Sanjay Colony, Sector-22, Faridabad – 121005.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Royal Enfiled (Unit of Eicher Limited) Regional Office: 7, HSIDC, Old Palam, Gurugram Road, Sector-18, Near Paco Maruti Car Showroom, Gurugram – 122005, Haryana through its Principal Officer.
…Opposite party
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Tarun Singh , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Devdutt Sharma , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the opposite party was running the business of manufacturing sale and supply of motorcycles under brand various brand name like bullet etc. and the opposite party had famour brand in the two wheeler market, The opposite party was maintaining its branch at Faridabad under the name and style “Heighteen Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. 14/5, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad. The complainant approached said agency to purchase motorcycle “Classic 350 ABS” gun metal grey color and said agency told the complainant that due to heavy demands, the complainant shall take time to deliver the said motorcycle and said agency suggested the complainant to book the same and the company shall deliver the said vehicle within 45 days and accordingly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5000/- to said agency as booking amount and booked the said motorcycle in the month of August,2019. The said agency failed to deliver the possession of said booked motorcycle and used to delay the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately sent the complainant to its other authorized dealer namely solitaire Automotive, A-60, Sector63, Noida and said Solitaire Automotive delivered the said booked motorcycle to the complainant on 17.11.2019 vide invoice dated 17.11.2019 and the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.1,50,240/- and also paid a sum of Rs.8260/- as premium of insurance policy. Besides this, said Solitaire Automotive also charged Rs.305/- as temporary registration charges. At that time, said officials of the said Soitaire Automotive told the complainant that the vehicle would be permanently registered at local address of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant informed the said agency and officials of the said agency assured the complainant that the vehicle would be registered by them on their own. Accordingly, the complainant submitted all requisite documents for the registration of said vehicle and also paid a sum of Rs.12,000/- and assured that the registration certificate should be provided to the complainant within 15 days, The said agency did not provide the registration certificate of said vehicle and always avoided the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, the complainant approached the opposite party and narrated all above said facts to the opposite party vide email and the opposite party sent the reply with an assurance that the opposite party would do the needful. Ultimatley, in the monthof April 2020, the transport Ministry issued notification vide which passed an order that “BSIV” models vehicles will not be registered in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Even thereafter, the complainant sent several emails and the opposite parties always misguided the complainant and in reply dated 18.04.2021, the opposite party also assured that “We completely understand the concern and are very sorry for inconveniences you have suffered. As per our telephonic conversation with you, we have escalated your concern with the concerned team. They are already looking into the details of the issue and shall revert to you with the findings and resolutions at the earliest. We will be in contact with you in coming days to ensure your concerns are addressed to your satisfaction.” The complainant sent legal notice dated 31.08.2021 to the opposite party through registered post but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) take back the said motorcycle and to refund the entire amount of cost of the said motorcycle, other expenses incurred by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the date of invoice till realization.
b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that as it was evident from the said dealership agreement, he opposite party was not obliged to deal with the customers or could not impose any obligation related to any happening per se. It was submitted that as per the said dealership agreement, the onus completely falls on Heighten Automotives alone, to deal with the demands of the complainant to resolve his issues, if any, pertaining to the registration of the bike and ancillary documentation pertaining to the vehicle, as the opposite party was not privy to any transaction between complainant and Heighten Automotives. As it was an admitted position that Heighten Automotives had given an assurance to the complainant that they would deliver the said bike within 45 days to the complainant , thus only Heighten Automotives can be held liable if they failed to fulfil its assurances. Moreover, vide letter dated 25.11.2019, the opposite party terminated the said dealership agreement in exercise f its rights as set out in the letter. Opposite party categorically conveyed the same to Heighten Automotives that with effect from the expiry of 3 months from the date of service of the termination notice i.e. form 25.2.2020, the Heighteen Automotives would cease to be an authorized dealer of the opposite party in all forms without exceptions. Heighten Automotives was thereupon obliged and bound, to refrain from all acts including using intellectual property rights of the opposite party. Existing customers including complainant, who were using the vehicle or products of the opposite party were duly informed about the termination of Heighteen Automotives from authorized dealership on 24.02.2020 via Text Messages. Thereafter, a notice was also issued in newspaper “The times of India’ on 18.03.2020 informing the public at large that Heighten automotives had ceased to be an authorized dealer with effect from 25.02.2020 and hence all of the opposite customers were duly informed of the same. It was apparent from the dealership agreement between the opposite party and Solitaire Automotives that, the opposite party was not obligated to deal with the customers or could not impose any obligation related to any happening per se. It was solely and wholly the duty of Solitaire Automotives to address and oblige with the demands of the complainant to resolve his issues, if any, with respect to the registration of the said bike and any ancillary documentation pertaining the said bike, as the opposite party was not privy to any transaction between complainant and Solitaire Automotives. The sale and purchase of the complainant’s vehicle was strictly negotiated and transacted between complainant and the Solitaire Automotives with absolutely no involvement of the opposite party. It was, therefore, necessary and important and Solitaire Automotives be made a party to the present complaint.
It was submitted that the complainant had falsely impleaded the opposite party in the present complaint as nothing survives against opposite party and opposite party was liable to be deleted as a part in the present complaint .Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–Royal Enfield with the prayer to: a) take back the said motorcycle and to refund the entire amount of cost of the said motorcycle, other expenses incurred by the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the date of invoice till realization. b) pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.C-01A – affidavit of Manoj Prabhakar Singh, Ex.C-01 - invoice,, Ex.C-02 – email dated 27.06.2020, Ex.C-03 – email dated17.4.2021, Ex.C-04 – legal notice. Ex.C-05 & 6 – postal receipts,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Mitesh Sharma C/o Royal Enfield, having its Corporate Office at 96, Sector-32, Gurgaon – 122001, Ex.RW/1 – Special Power of Attorney, Ex.RW/2 – Dealership agreement, Ex.RW/3 – letter dated 25.11.2019 regarding termination of dealership agreement entered into by virtue of LOI dated 01.09.2014, Ex.RW1/4 – Dealership termination, Ex.RW!/5 - dealership agreement, Ex.RW1/6 – letter dated 20.4.2020,
6. In this case, the complainant has booked a bullet Royal Enfield motor cycle from the opposite party. Because of shortage the opposite party
recommended to take motor cycle from the Noida agency and the taken money was given to opposite party. The opposite party has to register the motor cycle in question but till date opposite party has failed to register the above said motor cycle. The complainant has spent huge amount of money i.e. Rs.1,40,000/- and he has failed to enjoy the benefit of the spent money. The complainant has filed this complaint on dated 05.04.2022 to replace with the new one which can be
registered. The above noted dispute motor cycle was not registered due to change of the policy of the Government of Haryana.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the mileage of the motor cycle is just 7000 in two years . There should be deduction of 30% from the paid amount. No taxes and GST will be refunded to the complainant. Details are as under:
Basic value
As per invoice dated 17.11.2019 vide Ex.C-01 : Rs. 1,21,672/-
30% of the paid amount : - Rs. 36,501/-
Rs. 85,171/-
8. Keeping in view of the above submissions, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.85,171/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to return the disputed motor cycle to the complainant. This payment will be subject to the condition that the complainant will furnish the subrogation letter, cancellation of RC, affidavit, Form 29,30 and Form 35. Compliance of this order
be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 23.05.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
