PER:
Sh. Varinderpal Singh Saini, Member
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34,35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is an farmer and for his personal transport needs, he purchased one two wheeler having model Gearless Scooter having engine No. JF17EJKGJ5051 from the opposite party No. 1 vide Challan No. 2230 and invoice No. 63580BCVS dated 23.3.2020 by paying Rs. 50,000/- to this party and at the time of selling the two wheelers to the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that it will get the registration certificate issued for the vehicle sold by it and the RC will be delivered to the complainant within a fortnight, so the complainant awaited for the RC of the vehicle for this much time and visited the opposite party No. 1 after about 20 days to obtain the registration certificate of the above said vehicle. The opposite party NO. 1 told the complainant that the RC of the vehicle is not yet received by this party and it is making efforts to get it issued from the registering authority within a couple of days, so the complainant again believed the words of this party and again awaited for the RC. Insptie of awaiting for more than 2 days the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 for the above said purpose but again no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite party No. 1 in regard to the registration certificate of the vehicle purchased by him, so the complainant developed a doubt in his mind that there must be something wrong on the part of the opposite party No. 1 which is delaying to release the RC to the complainant so the complainant inquired the matter and was embarrassed by knowing the fact that the above said two wheeler sold by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant is of emission norms Bharat Stage-IV version and this version of the vehicles have been banned by the Government of India and as such, the registration of such emission norms stage vehicles could not be registered with the concerned authorities and as such the vehicle sold to the complainant by the opposite party will never be registered and no RC will be issued to this vehicle, hence the complainant felt defrauded at the hands of the opposite party No. 1 and also at the hands of the opposite party No. 2 as the opposite party No. 2 is equally liable for this unfair trade practice whereby this party is delivering the vehicles of wrong emission norms to the opposite party no. 1 and opposite party No. 1 is further selling these vehicles to innocent consumers such as complainant whereby the consumers are being cheated of their money which they are paying for purchasing these vehicles. After knowing the above mentioned fact, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and requested this party No. 1 and requested this party to return Rs. 50,000/- to him which was paid by him to this party for purchasing the above mentioned illegal vehicle but no reply was given by this party to the complainant in this regard. The complainant prayed the following relieves:
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.
- The opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for causing harassment of the complainant
- The opposite party No. 1 may kindly be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.
Alongwith the complaint the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of Tax Invoice Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of sale certificate Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of Challan Ex. C-5.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that at the time of sold out the vehicle, the registration of BS4 vehicle was running but during the period of COVID-19 in the country, the Apex Court stopped the registration of BS4 vehicle in country and on 2.12.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India again allowed the registration of BS4 vehicle sold before April, 2020. The site of e-Vahan for the registration of BS4 has not been reopened as yet as such, the opposite party No. 1 could not get register the said vehicle. The opposite party No. 1 has no fault of any kind in the dealing or registration of vehicle but the same is on the technical error, the opposite party No. 1 could not get register the vehicle in the name of complainant. The documents of the vehicle has already been uploaded on the site of e-Vahan and opposite party No. 1 is ready to get register the same as and when the site of e-Vahan re-opened. The opposite party No. 1 has no fault in the dealing with the complainant but all these have been happened due to the technical error by not reopening the site of e-Vahan. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
3 The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the opposite party No. 1 is an AD i.e. authorised Dealer of the products manufactured by OP-2/HMCL and also engages in carrying out service and repair of the said two wheelers such as motorcycle/ vehicles manufacture by OP-2. The opposite party no. 2 is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Two Wheelers in India. The present complaint is misconceived and untenable both on the facts and in law and deserves to be dismissed in limine by this Commission qua the OP-2. The Complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has intentionally and deliberately suppressed material facts, hence not entitled to any relief much less equitable relief from this Commission. The Complainant has not filed any acceptable evidence in the Complaint or in support of the cause of action made out qua the OP-2 before this Commission, hence, the present Complaint deserves to be dismissed by this Commission. As per business model of the OP-2, the OP-2 sells its products through its Authorized Dealers and they sell products manufactured by OP-2 to their Customer. The OP-2 sells its vehicles, spare parts, etc. to its Authorized Dealers on principle to principle basis which implies that the OP-2 sells its vehicles, spare parts, etc. to Authorized Dealers on order placed by them. Once the products are sold to the Authorized Dealers, OP-2 has no effective control over the same. Any transaction that takes place between the customers and the Authorized Dealers, the OP-2 has no role to play in it whatsoever. Similarly in present case the OP-2 played no role in dealing between the OP-1 with the Complainant and it is the purview of the OP-1 to do to provide Vehicle & to do documentation work as per their mutual understanding. However, it is for OP-1 to explain the factual position to defend the allegations, which has been allegedly by the complainant as the allegations raised in the complaint solely against the OP-1. The complainant has unnecessarily impleaded the OP-2 in the array of parties and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed qua the OP-2 or in the alternative OP-2 is to be discharged from the instant complaint by this Commission. The warranty policy is the only agreement between the complainant and the OP-2. The complainant has not raised any disputes qua the manufacturing defect or violation of terms & conditions as per the warranty policy in the complaint. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that this Commission may be pleased to dismiss such complaint as devoid of merits, lack of territorial jurisdiction & no cause of action at the very threshold. A copy of the warranty policy is attached herewith as Ex. OP2/2. The OP-1 & the OP-2 are separate legal entity and cannot be held liable for the acts of each other's. The OP-1 never adopted any unfair trade practice and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP-2. Therefore, present complaint deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold qua the OP-2. This commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the head office of the OP-2 is situated at New Delhi hence the present matter ought to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is based on baseless submissions qua the OP-2. Therefore, the present complaint is abuse of the process of this commission. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. it is under the purview of the Dealer to supply the vehicle and do documentation work as per the mutual understanding between the dealer and its customer. The OP-2 has no role to play between the transaction occurred between the Dealer and its customer. Similarly in the present matter the OP-2 played no role in transaction occurred between the OP-1 & the complainant. This commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the head office of the OP-2 is situated at New Delhi hence the present matter ought to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The warranty policy is the only agreement between the complainant and OP-2. The complainant has not raised any disputes qua the manufacturing defect or violation of terms and conditions as per the warranty policy in the complaint. This commission may be pleased to dismiss such complaint as devoid of merits, lack of territorial jurisdiction and no cause of action at the very threshold. The total relief sought by the complainant is only with the intent to malafidely and illegally extract money from OP-2 for unjust enrichment of himself. The OP-2 is not liable to pay Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant in terms of all the foregoing submissions made hereinabove. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. The opposite party No. 2 has placed on record affidavit of Siddharth Tewari Ex. OP2/1, Warranty Policy Ex. OP2/2.
4 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.
5 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that he is an farmer and for his personal transport needs, he purchased one two wheeler having model Gearless Scooter having engine No. JF17EJKGJ5051 from the opposite party No. 1 vide Challan No. 2230 and invoice No. 63580BCVS dated 23.3.2020 by paying Rs. 50,000/- to this party and at the time of selling the two wheelers to the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that it will get the registration certificate issued for the vehicle sold by it and the RC will be delivered to the complainant within a fortnight, so the complainant awaited for the RC of the vehicle for this much time and visited the opposite party No. 1 after about 20 days to obtain the registration certificate of the above said vehicle. He further contended that the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the RC of the vehicle is not yet received by this party and it is making efforts to get it issued from the registering authority within a couple of days, so the complainant again believed the words of this party and again awaited for the RC. Insptie of awaiting for more than 2 days the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 for the above said purpose but again no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite party No. 1 in regard to the registration certificate of the vehicle purchased by him, so the complainant developed a doubt in his mind that there must be something wrong on the part of the opposite party No. 1 which is delaying to release the RC to the complainant to complainant so the complainant inquired the matter and was embarrassed by knowing the fact that the above said two wheeler sold by the opposite party No. 1 to the complainant is of emission norms Bharat Stage-IV version and this version of the vehicles have been banned by the Government of India and as such, the registration of such emission norms stage vehicles could not be registered with the concerned authorities and as such the vehicle sold to the complainant by the opposite party will never be registered and no RC will be issued to this vehicle, hence the complainant felt defrauded at the hands of the opposite party No. 1 and also at the hands of the opposite party No. 2 as the opposite party No. 2 is equally liable for this unfair trade practice whereby this party is delivering the vehicles of wrong emission norms to the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 is further selling these vehicles to innocent consumers such as complainant whereby the consumers are being cheated of their money which they are paying for purchasing these vehicles. He further contended that after knowing the above mentioned fact, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and requested this party No. 1 and requested this party to return Rs. 50,000/- to him which was paid by him to this party for purchasing the above mentioned illegal vehicle but no reply was given by this party to the complainant in this regard and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
6 Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 contended that at the time of sold out the vehicle, the registration of BS4 vehicle was running but during the period of COVID-19 in the country, the Apex Court stopped the registration of BS4 vehicle in country and on 2.12.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India again allowed the registration of BS4 vehicle sold before April, 2020. The site of e-Vahan for the registration of BS4 has not been reopened as yet as such, the opposite party No. 1 could not get register the said vehicle. The opposite party No. 1 has no fault of any kind in the dealing or registration of vehicle but the same is on the technical error, the opposite party No. 1 could not get register the vehicle in the name of complainant. He further contended that the documents of the vehicle have already been uploaded on the site of e-Vahan and opposite party No. 1 is ready to get register the same as and when the site of e-Vahan re-opened. The opposite party No. 1 has no fault in the dealing with the complainant but all these have been happened due to the technical error by not reopening the site of e-Vahan and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
7 Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 contended that the opposite party No. 1 is an AD i.e. authorised Dealer of the products manufactured by OP-2/HMCL and also engages in carrying out service and repair of the said two wheelers such as motorcycle/ vehicles manufacture by OP-2. The opposite party No. 2 is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Two Wheelers in India. The present complaint is misconceived and untenable both on the facts and in law and deserves to be dismissed in limine by this Commission qua the OP-2. He further contended that the Complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has intentionally and deliberately suppressed material facts. The Complainant has not filed any acceptable evidence in the Complaint or in support of the cause of action made out qua the OP-2 before this Commission, hence, the present Complaint deserves to be dismissed by this Commission. He further contended that as per business model of the OP-2, the OP-2 sells its products through its Authorized Dealers and they sell products manufactured by OP-2 to their Customer. The OP-2 sells its vehicles, spare parts, etc. to its Authorized Dealers on principle to principle basis which implies that the OP-2 sells its vehicles, spare parts, etc. to Authorized Dealers on order placed by them. Once the products are sold to the Authorized Dealers, OP-2 has no effective control over the same. Any transaction that takes place between the customers and the Authorized Dealers, the OP-2 has no role to play in it whatsoever. Similarly in present case the OP-2 played no role in dealing between the OP-1 with the Complainant and it is the purview of the OP-1 to do to provide Vehicle & to do documentation work as per their mutual understanding. However, it is for OP-1 to explain the factual position to defend the allegations, which has been allegedly by the complainant as the allegations raised in the complaint solely against the OP-1. The complainant has unnecessarily impleaded the OP-2 in the array of parties and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed qua the OP-2 or in the alternative OP-2 is to be discharged from the instant complaint by this Commission. The warranty policy is the only agreement between the complainant and the OP-2. The complainant has not raised any disputes qua the manufacturing defect or violation of terms & conditions as per the warranty policy in the complaint. The OP-1 & the OP-2 are separate legal entity and cannot be held liable for the acts of each other's. The OP-1 never adopted any unfair trade practice and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP-2. He further contended that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the head office of the OP-2 is situated at New Delhi hence the present matter ought to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is based on baseless submissions qua the OP-2. Therefore, the present complaint is abuse of the process of this commission. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is under the purview of the Dealer to supply the vehicle and do documentation work as per the mutual understanding between the dealer and its customer. The OP-2 has no role to play between the transaction occurred between the Dealer and its customer. Similarly in the present matter the OP-2 played no role in transaction occurred between the OP-1 & the complainant. This commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the head office of the OP-2 is situated at New Delhi hence the present matter ought to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The warranty policy is the only agreement between the complainant and OP-2. The complainant has not raised any disputes qua the manufacturing defect or violation of terms and conditions as per the warranty policy in the complaint. This commission may be pleased to dismiss such complaint as devoid of merits, lack of territorial jurisdiction and no cause of action at the very threshold. The total relief sought by the complainant is only with the intent to malafidely and illegally extract money from OP-2 for unjust enrichment of himself. The OP-2 is not liable to pay Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant in terms of all the foregoing submissions made hereinabove and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8 We have gone through the rival contention of Ld. counsels for the parties.
9 In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased two wheeler from opposite party No. 1. It is also not disputed that the complainant has made the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party No. 1 regarding the same. According to complainant, the main dispute in the present case is that the opposite party No. 1 has not got prepared the registration certificate of the said vehicle. But according to opposite party No. 1 the Hon’ble Apex Court restored registration of BS IV Vehicles sold before April 2020 on dated 2.12.2021. But site e vahan for registration of BSIV vehicle also closed during period COVID-19, so opposite party No. 1 cannot get register the vehicle of the complainant. As such, at present it is out of the control of the opposite party No. 1 to get registered the said vehicle from the registration authority.
10 The said vehicle remain with the complainant for more than 4 years but the complainant has not produced on record any document which shows that he was willing to return the said vehicle to the opposite party No. 1. However, the registration of vehicle BS-IV is not done by the registration authority under the instructions of the Government, therefore, the said vehicle is liable to be returned to the opposite party No. 1 by the complainant. Consequently, end of justice will meet if the complainant is directed to return the said vehicle to the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 will return Rs. 50,000/- i.e. price of motorcycle received by opposite party No. 1 from the complainant.
11 In view of above discussion we partly allowed the present complaint and the complainant is directed to return the vehicle in question to the opposite party No. 1 within one month from today and immediately, on receipt of vehicle the opposite party No. 1 will return Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant against proper receipt. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party No. 1 unnecessarily for a long time as such the complainant is also entitled to Rs.7,500 /- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and 5,000 /- as litigation expenses. The present complaint against the opposite party No 2 is dismissed. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the total awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realization.
Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission. Copy of order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
11.7.2024
