Date of Filing : 28.12.2020
Date of Disposal : 31.10.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.15/2021
THIS MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
Mrs.Divya Bharathy, W/o.Vijaykumar,
No.5, Ramamurthy Nagar,
Jaya Nagar, Thiruvallur 602001. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Sai Motors,
Represented by its Partners Suresh and Syed,
No.182, 183, PH Road,
Ondikuppam, Manavalanagar, Thiruvallur – 602 002.
2.The Manager (Legal),
TVS Motor Company Private Limited,
Jayalakshmi Estates.
Chennai 600 001. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.R.S.Bharanivel Raaj, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 14.10.2022 in the presence of Mr.R.S.Bharanivel Raaj counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties for non registration of the vehicle along with a prayer to replace the TVS Zest model vehicle with any BS6 model vehicle which is eligible for registration and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that for a sum of Rs.62,000/- a TVS Scooty zest was purchased by her from the 1st opposite party on 25.05.2020 with chassis No.MD626FG46J2E14114 and Engine No.FG4EJ2X14499. The vehicle purchased from the 1st opposite party was in not a good running condition and was having various defects and when the same was intimated to the opposite parties they did not answer nor rectify the defects. Thus there was no proper response from the opposite party. Further the 1st opposite party has collected all the amounts including the registration charges and fees at the time of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. Though the 1st opposite party assured the complainant that the registration of the vehicle would be completed within two weeks from the date of delivery, till filing of the complaint the registration was not done. Without registering the vehicle the complainant was unable to use the vehicle. However the opposite parties did not take any steps to get the vehicle registered and made the complainant to run from pillar and post to get the vehicle to register. On one morning the 1st opposite party closed his showroom and got vanished. When the complainant enquired about the opposite party there was no proper reply from the neighbours. When the complainant informed about the happening to the 2nd opposite party who was the manufacturer of the vehicle and who has given the dealership to the 1st opposite party to sell the vehicle by way of complaint through email, the 2nd opposite party sought for the details of the vehicle on 23.07.2020. The complainant furnished all the details required by the 2nd opposite party but no action was taken by them. Many complaints were filed but the 2nd opposite party failed to respond to the complaints of the complainant. A police complaint was also given but of no use. When the complainant enquired about the registration of the vehicle on her own she was shocked to know that the vehicle sold to her by the 1st opposite party and manufactured by the 2nd opposite party was a model of BS4 and the same could not be registered and only BS6 vehicles were eligible for registration. All the information was given to the complainant by RTO. Thus the 1st opposite party in collusion with the 2nd opposite party had sold the vehicle with the knowledge that the said vehicle could not be registered and thus had committed breach of trust and deficiency in service by manufacturing and selling the vehicle which was banned by the Government. Thus aggrieved the present complaint has been filed for the following reliefs.
To direct the opposite parties to replace the TVS Zest model vehicle with any BS6 model vehicle which is eligible for registration;
To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship;
To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A10. In spite of sufficient opportunities and notice the opposite parties did not appear before this Commission and hence they were called absent and set ex-parte on 03.06.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version.
Points for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in selling scooty zest the vehicle to the complainant and in not registering the same with the RTO?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;
New vehicle Gate Pass dated 26.05.2020 was marked as Ex.A1;
Payment receipts dated 25.05.2020 was marked as Ex.A2;
Email complaint to the 2nd opposite party dated 21.07.2020 was marked as Ex.A3;
Reply email from the 2nd opposite party dated 23.07.2020 was marked as Ex.A4;
Email letter from the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated 27.07.2020 was marked as Ex.A5;
Email status dated 11.08.2020 was marked as Ex.A6;
Reminder sent by the complainant was marked as Ex.A7;
Reply from the opposite party dated 27.08.2020 was marked as Ex.A8;
Police complaint given by the complainant dated 03.10.2020 was marked as Ex.A9;
CSR copy was marked as Ex.A10;
Heard the oral arguments and perused the pleadings and documents produced by the complainant. The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that she was cheated by the 1st opposite party by selling a vehicle which could not be registered. He argued that the 2nd opposite party was also responsible for the act of the 1st opposite party as the 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle and has given the dealership to the 1st opposite party. Thus he sought for the replacement of the vehicle or to refund the amount paid to the 1st opposite party along with compensation.
As per Ex.A1 we could see that the vehicle with chassis No.MD626FG46J2E14114 and Engine No.FG4EJ2X14499 model Zest Matte/ Black BS IV was sold on 26.05.2020 to the complainant. Vide Ex.A2 we could see that an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant. As the vehicle was not registered vide Ex.A3 the complainant had made online complaint to the 2nd opposite party/manufacturer for cheating contending that the vehicle purchased from the 1st opposite party was not registered by them and there was no response when enquired by her. Further as the 2nd opposite party sought for some details the complainant had sent the details of the vehicle’s invoice, bills etc., to the 2nd opposite party vide Ex.A4. We could also see that the customer care of the 2nd opposite party had stated that the grievance of the complainant had been registered and that the information shared with the concerned team and that they also assured that the area representatives would reach the complainant and assist her to get a solution. Further the email sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party was marked as Ex.A6. The police complaint given by the complainant about the purchase of the vehicle and its non registration and also seeking for refund or replacement of the vehicle was filed as Ex.A9. The CSR copy for registration of complaint was marked as Ex.A10. The complainant has alleged that along with vehicle cost of Rs.50,000/- the 1st opposite party/dealer had sold the vehicle for Rs.62,000/- including registration and other expenses. However, the 1st opposite party failed to get the vehicle registered and also had closed their showroom and absconded and thereby cheating the complainant. when the complaint was made to the police station and also to this commission the opposite party did not appear and it is also seen that the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the vehicle and though initially the 2nd opposite party had responded to the complainant they also failed to sort out the grievance of the complainant. At this moment it is to be noted that the manufacturer/2nd opposite party had given dealership to the 1st opposite party to sell the vehicle which could not be registered and banned. Thus we could safely conclude that the 2nd opposite party was also liable for the act of the 1st opposite party/dealer. Thus it is amply proved that the opposite parties had not only committed deficiency in service but also had practiced unfair trade practice and hence liable to compensate the complainant. Thus the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:
With regard to relief to be granted the complainant had sought for replacement of the vehicle. However as the Consumer Protection Act being a consumer beneficial legislation, in the interest of justice we also direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.62,000/- being the amount received by the 1st opposite party towards cost of the vehicle and registration charges within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also award Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused due to deficiency and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties and also award Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them jointly and severally
a) to replace the TVS Zest BS4 model vehicle with any BS6 model vehicle which is eligible for registration or in alternative to refund a sum of Rs.62,000/- (Rupees sixty two thousand only) within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 31st day of October 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 26.05.2020 New Vehicle Gate Pass. Xerox
Ex.A2 25.05.2020 Payment Receipts. Xerox
Ex.A3 .................. Email sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A4 23.07.2020 Reply from the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 27.07.2020 Email letter from complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A6 11.08.2020 Email. Xerox
Ex.A7 21.08.2020 Remainder. Xerox
Ex.A8 27.08.2020 Reply Xerox
Ex.A9 03.10.2020 Police complaint given by complainant. Xerox
Ex.A10 03.10.2020 CSR copy. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties;
Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
