Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-Advocate for the appellant in both the appeals and Mr.V.B.Mahajan-Advocate for respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2.
2. Since these two appeals since involves same facts and arise out of the order passed in consumer complaint no.440/2011, Shivaji Nagu Nawalkar v/s. Chetan Motors and another; passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur; are disposed of by this common order. Appeal no.A/12/195 is filed by the opponent no.2 -M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. (herein after referred to as ‘Manufacturer’) while Appeal no.A/12/525 is filed by opponent no.1 -M/s.Chetan Motors (herein after referred to as ‘Dealer’). Respondent no.1 in both the appeals, namely, Shivaji Nagu Nawalkar is the original complainant (herein after referred as ‘complainant’).
3. It is the case of the complainant Shivaji that he had purchased ACE MAGIC HTE 11 W.B.2100 with G.B.S. 65.4 Gear 5 Tata Diesel vehicle for consideration of `2,86,508/- through dealer M/s.Chetan Motors in the month of May 2011, the quotation for which was given by the dealer on 03/05/2011 and after receipt of the payment Sales Invoice was prepared on 18/05/2011 and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on the same day. It is the contention of the complainant that he agreed with the dealer to get registration of the vehicle done by himself through RTO, Kolhapur. However, RTO refused to register the vehicle seeing that the vehicle could not be registered since it was euro II vehicle. The vehicle was manufactured in the month of August, 2010. Dealer also tried to get registered the vehicle but in vain. Ultimately, it is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the vehicle was sold to him though the dealer was well aware that since it was not complying with euro III, it could not be registered and, thus, feeling cheated, filed a consumer complaint iner-alia claiming the relief asking the dealer to get registered the vehicle or if no registration is possible, then to give him Euro III vehicle or to return him the price of the vehicle along with other expenses incurred by the complainant including `1,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture, total amounting to `4,69,085/-.
4. Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the manufacturer and dealer to replace the vehicle of the complainant with BSIII norm vehicle and to get it registered at their costs including incurring expenditure for insurance. Alternatively, it was further directed to the dealer and the manufacturer to refund an amount of `3,22,322/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 18/05/2011 and also reimburse the complainant to the extent of `5,000/- paid to RTO for selection of number, `300/- as hypothecation charges, road tax of `22,563/- and insurance premium of `8,901/-. Apart from that dealer and manufacturer were directed to pay `10,000/- for mental torture and `2,000/- as costs.
5. In the appeal filed separately by the dealer and the manufacturer, supra, respondent no.2 was other opponent i.e. in appeal filed by the dealer, respondent no.2 was the manufacturer and in appeal filed by the manufacturer, respondent no.2 was a dealer. Appeal against both of them though represented by the same lawyer, to avoid the technicalities were not pressed and, as such, their respective appeals were admitted only against respondent/original complainant. Heard accordingly.
6. In the instant case, both the dealer and manufacturer were ex-parte and on the basis of the material placed on record on behalf of the complainant, inter-alia including the documents of registration, the notice sent to the dealer as well as the information obtained under the Right to Information Act by the complainant regarding status as to Euro norms and the registration of the vehicle and also the affidavit of Assistant RTO, Mr.Hemant Patil; the dispute came to be settled as per the order referred earlier. It could be seen that complainant in the complaint alleged that the dealer deliberately did not brief him as to Euro norms as relevant to the registration of the vehicle since it was meeting only with Euro II norms and registration of such vehicle was stopped by the Government after 01/04/2010 and sold the vehicle to him. Admittedly, voluntarily, he has taken the responsibility on himself to get registered the vehicle. In his affidavit dated 26/12/2011 complainant Shivaji did not state anything about the dealer making any false representation or material suppressing the information of vehicle meeting Euro II norms only of which the registration was stopped by the time vehicle was sold to him in the month of May 2011. Thus, his affidavit does not speak anything about any such alleged false representation. Apart from that though Assistant RTO, Mr.Hemant Patil stated in his evidence that the vehicle could not be registered since it was manufactured in the month of August 2010 and registration of such vehicle was stopped after 01/04/2010, cannot be believed, particularly, in view of circular of Government of India dated 28/05/2010. A bare reading thereof would clarify that cut off date of the vehicle manufactured was 01/10/2010 for non registration of the vehicle which was not meeting with Euro III norms. Vehicle in question was admittedly manufactured in the month of August 2010 i.e. before this cut off date and, therefore, it is not the case that the vehicle could not be registered. Since the legal position stands like this, no malafides could be attributed to the dealer for suppression of any information that when the vehicle was sold to the complainant, the dealer already knew that the vehicle could not be registered. Under these circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of dealer could be assumed or attributed. One cannot loss sight of the fact that it is the complainant for his own reasons as stated by his counsel during the argument since the dealer quoted higher charges for registration, had taken the responsibility on himself to get registered the vehicle and under those circumstances, their vehicle was handed over to him by the dealer after getting the temporary registration number bearing no.MH-09-TC-2. A useful reference on the point also can be made to the decision of the National Commission in the matter of Shri Shankerlal L.Sachdev v/s. .Managing Director, Skoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd. and another (2012) 3 CPR 68 (NC).
7. As far as manufacturer of the vehicle, namely, M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. is concerned, it had no role to play in this scenario and by no stretch of imagination any deficiency in service could be alleged against the manufacturer, they also cannot be held guilty for any unfair trade practice.
8. Under the circumstances, forum even though the dealer and manufacturer were ex-parte, overlooked the provisions of law, misread the facts and arrived at a wrong conclusion. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal nos.A/12/525 & A/12/195 are allowed.
Impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 16th April, 2013.
