The complainant was the owner of Hero Honda Spelondor vehicle bearing registration No.KA-37/U-1276.  He wanted to purchase a new vehicle in exchange of old vehicle.  Therefore, he approached the OP No.2, which is a authorized sales and service center at Koppal.  OP No.1 is the authorized dealer at Raichur for Honda two wheeler vehicles.

            2.  The delivery note, Ex.A.1 dated 14-01-2013 issued by OP No.2 discloses that the total amount payable was Rs.55,120/-.  Less deduction of Rs.40,000.00 towards old vehicle. Thus balance amount to be paid was Rs.15,120.00, which has been paid by the complainant.

            3.  An enquiry quotation, Ex.A.9 dated: 27-12-2012 given by
M/s Tirumala Motors, Raichur.  The particulars of Honda vehicles shows price of the vehicle shown therein is as follows;

            4.  The complainant claims that when he has taken the new vehicle for service to the authorized centre at Koppal, OP No.2 refused to give the service.  This averment appears to be incorrect for the reason that documents, Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 clearly discloses that the vehicle was serviced at Koppal on 28-01-2013 and 19-03-2013.  So, two free services were provided at Taleda Honda, Koppal.  At the time of first service vehicle had run 900 Kms and at the time second service, the vehicle has run 3400 KMs.  There is also another service entry sheet provided in the owner’s manual about the first and second free services.  There is no proof to the fact that the complainant has approached OP No.2 for third service.  No complaint about refusal to provide free service to the Honda Company.  The complainant did not approach other service centre available in nearby town like Gangavathi, Hospet or Gadag.  Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention that the OP No.2 refused to provide free service as contended in paragraph 4 & 6 of the complaint. 

            5.  The main contention in the complaint is that OP No.2 has kept the Insurance Policy, TP and also spare key, on account of which some problem in the RTO Office, which is not clear from the complaint.

            6.  The complainant also states that he has paid Rs.8,000 to 10,000 penalty to the Traffic Police on account of non-passing of the vehicle.  The complainant has produced one document as per Ex.A.10 shows that the vehicle was checked by the traffic police on 24-11-2013 and he was fined Rs.500 for having driven the vehicle without insurance.  No other document is furnished in support of the contention that the complainant has paid Rs.8,000 to 10,000 as fine amount to the Traffic Police. 

            7.  The first prayer in the complaint is for a direction that the remaining two free services should be provided without collecting any spare parts charges.  Such prayer cannot be allowed because free service means only payment of labour charges will be exempted and not charges of consumable articles and spare parts and accessories.

            8.  The second prayer in the complaint is a direction to provide new vehicle.  This prayer is rejected outright as no case is made-out in the same complaint because no proof of any irreparable manufacturing defects in the vehicle.  The complainant is still using the vehicle.

            9.  In the alternative, the complainant also sought for a direction for payment of penalty in the RTO office and get the passing done and also insurance to be renewed.  We are unable what is meant by passing in the RTO Office.  Such kind of passing in RTO doesn’t find in the Motor Vehicles Act – 1988.  So, we cannot direct the authorized sale centre to pay the penalty payable by the complainant to the RTO Office for his fault.

            10.  The complainant is the owner of the vehicle since last two years.  Now it is responsibility of the owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle insured.  Therefore OP No.2 cannot be held responsible to get the vehicle insured now.

            11.  The next prayer in the complaint is for direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as penal damages.  Suffice to say to that no such ground is made-out for payment of penal damages.  In our opinion, the complaint though prepared in Kannada badly drafted.

            12.  In the written version as well as affidavit evidence, the Proprietor of OP No.2 centre stated that he has not kept the Insurance Policy copy or the Temporary Certificate copy of the vehicle key.

            13.  The delivery note, Ex.A.1 clearly discloses that the price to be paid is without RTO.  The complainant has signed this document at two places.  He has not proved before this Forum as to what is the charges for registration and how much has been paid and when.

            14.  Arguments were heard in part on 02-01-2015.  On that day we notice that how the total price collected of Rs.55,120/- was utilized.  Therefore, notice was issued to OP No.2 to furnish following particulars;

1. Cost of the vehicle.
2. Insurance Premium
3. T.P.Charges
4. Registration Tax
5. Extra fitting details and charges
6. Delivery charges and
7. Ex-Show room price of the vehicle fixed by the company and so also insurance policy number, if any.

15. In compliance-with the direction, advocate for OP No.2 furnished a letter from the Proprietor, which contains the following particulars;

It appears to us that Ex-show room price of the vehicle fixed by the Honda Company was Rs.49,810/- and not Rs.55,120/- as mentioned above.

16.  The above table discloses that the OP No.2 collected Rs.1,078.00 towards insurance.  In the notice, this Forum has directed OP No.2 to furnish the insurance policy number but the same has not been furnished, which discloses that insurance has not been done.  Otherwise, OP No.2 should have been able to furnish the name of the insurance company, policy number and date of insurance.  Ex.A.10 also discloses that the complainant had paid fine of Rs.500.00 because the vehicle was not registered on 24-11-2013.  Therefore, it is evident that insurance was not done on 14-01-2013 although Rs.1,078.00 has been collected from the complainant.  This is definitely a deficiency in service as defined u/sec. 2(1)(g) and (o) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.  Therefore, OP No.2 is liable to pay compensation for the said deficiency in service.  As such, sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation for monetary loss for not getting the insurance done and falsely claiming before this Forum that insurance policy has been delivered to the complainant for which penal damages awarded u/sec. 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986.

17.  Resultantly, this Forum directs the OP No.2 to pay sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of complaint till actual payment.  In addition, OP No.2 to pay Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses.  The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.  Compliance report to be furnished by OP No.2 within four months.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.