Tripura

StateCommission

A/35/2018

Sri Ratan Kumar Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Joydip Debnath - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Mr. Rajib Saha, Dhrubajyoti Saha

06 Dec 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.35.2018

 

 

 

1. Sri Ratan Kumar Roy,

Panna Hyundai,

(A Unit of Panna Motors),

NH-44, A.A. Road, Chanpur,

Agartala, Tripura West - 799008.

Authorized Dealer of Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

Regd. Office & Factory: Plot No. H-1, SIPCOT, Industrial Park,

Irrungattukottai,

Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District,

Tamilnadu- 602117, India.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite parties.

Vs

 

1. Sri Joydip Debnath,

S/o Late Khokan Ch. Debnath,

Dhaleswar, Road No.1/14, Crossing 

Opposite of Parimal Medical Hall,

P.O. Dhaleswar, Agartala,

West Tripura- 799007.

                                                          … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

Dr. Chhanda Bhattacharyya,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                                              Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv.

For the Respondent:                                            In person.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:          06.12.2018.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C.02 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner) directing the appellant no.1, Panna Hyundai (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.1/Panna Motors) to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also directed the appellant no.2, Hyundai Motors India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposite party no.2) to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation, in total Rs.70,000/- is to be paid to the petitioner, the respondent herein. The learned District Forum also directed the appellant-opposite parties to cooperate with the petitioner and take effective step for registration of the vehicle.  Payment is to be made within two months, if not paid, it will carry interest @9% interest per annum.

2. Heard Mr. Rajib Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties as well as Shri Joydip Debnath, respondent-complainant appearing in person.
3. In terms of the order dated 16.11.2018, the matter is taken up for amicable settlement between the parties as the appellant no.1, Sri Ratan Kumar Roy and the respondent-complainant, Sri Joydip Debnath are present, but Sri Joydip Debnath is not inclined to amicably settle the matter.

In view of the above, the matter is taken up for final hearing at this stage as agreed to by the parties.

4. Brief facts of the case needed to be discussed are as follows:-   

Complainant, Sri Joydip Debnath purchased a new car Hyundai Grand i10 Magna 1.2, bearing Chassis No.MALA851CLGM495089, Engine No.G4LAGM131524 on 23.11.2016 from the opposite party no.1, Panna Motors, the authorized dealer of opposite party no.2, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. At the time of handing over of the vehicle, the opposite party no.1 provided free insurance of the vehicle as per Policy and also the vehicle was registered temporarily being temporary Registration No.TR 01 AB TEM-9538 and the validity of the said registration was about one month. Thereafter, as the complainant’s mother fell seriously ill, he could not register the vehicle for two months. After lapse of two months, in the month of January 2017, complainant went to the Registering Authority for registration of the vehicle when he was informed by the Registering Authority that the vehicle which he purchased was already sold to one Pimpri Chinchwas at Maharashtra and there the vehicle already registered. In the meantime, he paid installments to the Bank @Rs.7,334/- for the vehicle. He brought the above facts to the notice of the opposite party no.1, Panna Motors as well as to the Regional Office of the opposite party no.2 through e-mail, but they did not take any step for rectification of the mistake committed by RTO, Pune. He has also written a letter on 30.12.2017 to the opposite party no.1, Sri Ratan Kumar Roy of Panna Motors. Even thereafter also, no relief was given to him. Thus he filed the complaint petition before the learned District Forum for making arrangement to supply of one new vehicle instead of the old one and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

5.  Opposite party no.1, Panna Motors as well as opposite party no.2, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. appeared and filed their respective written statement denying the claim of the complainant-petitioner. Opposite party no.1 in his written statement stated that the complainant-petitioner appeared before the Registering Authority after one year of purchase of the vehicle i.e. in the month of December, 2017 and by that time the insurance policy provided to the complainant-petitioner temporarily was lapsed. Considering the difficulty faced by the complainant-petitioner, the opposite party no.1 on humanitarian ground was ready to pay the fine for registration of the vehicle, but the complainant-petitioner did not cooperate with them. Temporary registration was done on the initiative of the opposite party no.1 and such registration was valid up to 22.12.2016. It is also contended that within the validity of the temporary registration of the vehicle and the lifetime of the insurance policy provided to the complainant-petitioner, the petitioner was to be appeared before the Registering Authority, but the complainant-petitioner did not do so. Thus the Registration Authority denied him to register his vehicle. It is further stated that as soon as he got the information about the registration of the vehicle by RTO, Pune in the name of one Pimpri Chinchwas, he took up the matter with the opposite party no.2, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and with the cooperation of the opposite party no.2, he (opposite party no.1) finally corrected the mistake committed by RTO, Pune and the said fact was also informed to the complainant-petitioner, but then also, the complainant did not register the vehicle with the Registering Authority. Thus the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.   
6. On the other hand, the opposite party no.2, Hyundai Motor India Ltd. in its written statement denied the claim of the complainant-petitioner and stated, inter alia, that the present complaint is frivolous, misconceived and without any merit whatsoever and deserves to be dismissed in limine. It is also stated that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant-petitioner from the opposite party no.1 who is an authorized dealer of Hyundai Motor India Ltd. and the Hyundai Motor India Ltd. is only the manufacturer of the vehicles and has no role either relating to sale of the vehicles or for purchase by the customer like the complainant-petitioner and also regarding the registration of the vehicle. The further case of the opposite party no.2 is that though the complainant-petitioner purchased the vehicle in the month of November, 2016, but he approached the dealer in the month of August, 2017 seeking help for getting registration of his car, as the concerned VIN was reflecting at Pune RTO and the said VIN number was wrongly punched/entered at Pune RTO, the same was released by the Pune RTO and thereafter the same is reflecting at Agartala RTO. The dealer had made number of calls to the complainant to provide the said information so that complainant can approach the Agartala RTO to complete the registration process, but there was no response from the complainant. It is the further case of the opposite party no.2 that both opposite party no.1 and 2 took initiative to correct the mistake committed by RTO, Pune and RTO, Pune also corrected the mistake so that it can be reflected at Agartala RTO. Thus there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. On the basis of the contention raised by the parties in their respective pleading, the following points were taken up by the learned District Forum to  decide the case:-

1. Whether the O.P. failed to cooperate with the petitioner for registration of the vehicle in time?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?
8. Complainant produced the correspondence letters between him and the opposite party no.1, Sale Certificate, Vouchers, Cash Memo, Bank Loan Certificate. He also examined himself as one of the witness.
9. Opposite parties, on the other hand, examined two witnesses, namely, Sri Ratan Kumar Roy, opposite party no.1 and one Sukomal Satyen for opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.1 appeared before the learned District Forum and adduced his evidence, who was also cross-examined, but Mr. Sukomal Satyen did not appear for his cross-examination.
10. On the basis of the evidence on record, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
11. Mr. Saha, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite parties while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum failed to consider the case in its true aspect. He further submits that the registration of the vehicle by the RTO, Pune was due to mistake and has no connection either with the opposite party no.1 or opposite party no.2. He again submits that RTO, Pune was not the party in the complaint case before the learned District Forum for which itself the complaint petition ought to have been dismissed by the learned District Forum. He has also submitted that as and when the complainant-petitioner informed the opposite party no.1 as well as the opposite party no.2, they had taken up the matter for correction of the mistake committed by the RTO, Pune and accordingly, RTO, Pune corrected his mistake and released the Vehicle Identification Number to the RTO, Agartala, but admittedly the complainant-petitioner did not register the vehicle with the RTO, Agartala till date from which it can be said that the intention of the petitioner is only to harass the opposite parties, not to get registration of the vehicle. His further contention before this Commission is that, the complainant-petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the learned District Forum that he went to the RTO, Agartala and consequent thereto, the RTO, Agartala informed him regarding the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) by the RTO, Pune. 
12. Per contra, complainant-petitioner, Sri Joydip Debnath in his usual fairness submits that admittedly he could not produce any evidence regarding the information of the registration of the vehicle by the RTO, Pune as given by RTO, Agartala except the statement made in the complaint petition. He further submits that admittedly he did not obtain registration of the vehicle purchased by him with the RTO, Agartala and also failed to renew the insurance policy in time. His further contention is that though he has taken up the fact of registration of vehicle in the name of another person by the RTO, Pune and lastly on 30.12.2017, but the opposite party no.1 informed him by letter dated 12.04.2018 that issue had been resolved on 18.01.2018 which occurred due to wrong entry by the RTO, Pune in Maharashtra by human error which itself is a deficiency of service.
13. We have gone through the evidence on record as well as the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Forum. It appears that the complainant-petitioner neither added the RTO, Pune as a respondent nor had he made any allegation against the RTO, Pune though the wrong was committed admittedly by the RTO, Pune. Not only that, he did not produce even the RTO, Agartala as a witness to support his contention that the RTO, Agartala denied him to register his vehicle on the ground of the registration done by RTO, Pune. It is the admitted position that the complainant-petitioner purchased the vehicle from the opposite party no.1 on 23.11.2016 and temporary registration was given for one month up to 22.12.2016 and the complainant-petitioner went to the RTO, Agartala for registration of vehicle after the lapse of one month and expiry of lifetime of insurance policy provided to him by the opposite party no.1. In Paragraph-11 of the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum while discussing the evidence observed that “From the documentary and oral evidence admitted statement of company officer it is clear that registration was denied as because the vehicle was already registered at Pune. According to company, official mistake was committed by RTO authority at Pune not by them.” But the learned District Forum came to a conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record that the complainant-petitioner suffered because the vehicle sold out by the opposite party no.1 was registered at Pune though the information was given to the opposite party no.1, Panna Hyundai and also to the opposite party no.2, but they did not take any step. Such a finding is not correct as it appears from the evidence of opposite party no.1 that he had taken up the matter immediately after receipt of the information regarding the registration of the vehicle sold to the complainant-petitioner by the RTO, Pune to the name of another person. Admittedly, the vehicle covered the insurance from 23.11.2016 to 22.11.2017 and the petitioner made correspondence with Panna Motors, the opposite party no.1 on 30.12.2017 i.e. after expiry of the insurance policy. It appears from the findings of the learned District Forum that “On January 2^nd, 2018 information was given by Panna Motors that the problem was resolved and vehicle may be registered.” whereas, the complaint petition was filed on 16.01.2018 i.e. after getting the information from the opposite party no.1 that the problem occurred due to mistake committed by the RTO, Pune was resolved and complainant is free to register his vehicle with the RTO, Agartala.
14. In view of the above, we are of the view that the learned District Forum failed to consider the evidence in its true aspect. The learned District Forum also in its findings stated that “The company actually learnt in the month August, 2017 but Panna Hyundai got this information at the beginning of January, 2017.” It is not clear to us on the basis of what the learned District Forum came to such a findings as according to record, the complainant sent letter to Sri Ratan Kumar Roy of Panna Motors first time on 30.12.2017 and he sent the information regarding the registration of the vehicle by the RTO, Pune to the opposite party no.2 on 2^nd January, 2018. Therefore, such a finding of the learned District Forum is without any evidence. The main grievance of the complainant-petitioner before the learned District Forum was that, neither the opposite party no.1 nor the opposite party no.2 helped him for registration of his vehicle with the RTO, Agartala even after knowing the fact of registration of the same vehicle to another person by RTO, Pune, but fact remains that the opposite party no.1 with the help of opposite party no.2 taken up the matter with the RTO, Pune and RTO, Pune corrected the mistake committed by him which was informed by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant-petitioner on 2^nd January, 2018. Thus it cannot be said that opposite party no.1 and 2 failed to discharge their duties to help the complainant-petitioner to register his vehicle, rather it is the complainant-petitioner who did not register his vehicle within the time framed even after all necessary papers were handed over by the O.P.W.1 to him for registering his vehicle. In the month of August, 2017 for the first time the complainant-petitioner sought for help to the opposite party no.1 for getting his car registration as the concerned VIN was reflected at Pune RTO. The opposite party no.1 had made number of calls to the complainant to provide the said information so that the complainant can approach the Agartala RTO to complete the registration process, but there was no response from him and ultimately he was informed by way of sending a letter. It also appears from the examination-in-chief of Sri Ratan Kumar Roy, O.P.W.1, i.e. the opposite party no.1, partner of Panna Motors that there is no specific allegation in the complaint petition against him or his establishment due to which the complainant had faced any deficiency of service. Such contention of the O.P.W.1 is not contradicted by the complainant-petitioner by way of cross-examination.
15. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the opposite party no.1 and 2 did not commit any deficiency of service as required, rather tried to help the complainant-petitioner to get registration of his vehicle with the RTO, Agartala after rectifying the mistake committed by RTO, Pune. Though there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party no.1 and 2 then also, the opposite party no.1 in his affidavit-in-chief fairly stated that they are ready to provide the fine money to the complainant-petitioner for registration of his vehicle. The learned District Forum did not consider such a fact in the impugned judgment. According to us, such a good gesture shown by the opposite party no.1 is nothing, but to help the complainant-petitioner for registration of his vehicle though he was not bound to do so in terms of law.  

In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and consequent thereto, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura