Date of Filing: 19.07.2007<br /> Date of Order: 03.01.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 3rd DAY OF JANUARY 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1516 OF 2007<br /> <br /> Sri. Puttaswamy, <br /> R/at. No.83, 7th Main, 5th Cross,<br /> Subbana Garden, Vijayanagar,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 040. …. COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> -V/s-<br /> <br /> 1. Sri. Syed Razak, - Proprietor -<br /> M/s. Bangalore Auto Gas,<br /> No.320/3, Mysore Road,<br /> Opp. BHL Factory, Bangalore – 026.<br /> <br /> 2. The Managing Director,<br /> Enviro Auto Gas Technology Pvt. Ltd.<br /> Auth. Distributor for South India,<br /> No.428, Anna Salai Nadam,<br /> CHENNAI –600 035. …. OPPOSITE PARTIES<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is filed praying for direction to the opposite parties to furnish ARAI Certificate to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on the following grounds:-<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant who is the owner of Tata Indica Car bearing No. KA-05-MC-5316, approached opposite party No.1 for installation of L.P.G Gas Kit. Opposite Party No.1 gave quotation for Rs.21,900/- on 07.03.2007, but after discussion the amount was reduced by Rs.300/-. The amount so quoted included the costs of getting the necessary conversion entry made by the RTO in the RC Book. The complainant paid Rs.21,600/- to opposite party No.1 on 08.03.2007 and got the Retro-fitment of L.P.G Kit to his vehicle. Opposite party No.1 had assured that they will provide necessary conversion documents and get an endorsement made in the RC Book by the RTO. With copies of documents received from the opposite party No.1, the complainant approached the RTO for necessary conversion entry in the RC Book, but after inspection of documents, RTO directed the complainant to produce ARAI Certificate stating that the Certificate dated: 11.03.2005 is not valid, as per Central Government Notification dated: 15.09.2005. According to the complainant, opposite party No.1 & 2 cheated him by furnishing invalid documents for transfer of the fuel in respect of the vehicle and opposite party No.1 also cheated the Commercial Tax Department by issuing the bill for Rs.8,737/- instead of Rs.21,600/-. On account of acts of the opposite parties the complainant suffered loss and therefore entitled to damages and expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version the contention of opposite party No.1 M/s. Bangalore Auto Gas is as under:-<br /> <br /> Opposite Party No.1 received Rs.8,737/- from the Complainant on 07.03.2007 and not on 08.03.2007 as alleged. The complainant did not pay Rs.21,600/- at anytime. The issuance of quotation does not mean that the complainant has paid the entire amount. Opposite party No.1 had not undertaken to get an endorsement made in the RC Book regarding conversion of fuel. It carried-out the job of fitting “LOVATO” Gas Kit for a consideration of Rs.8,737/- and never demanded the balance amount as per the estimate. It has discharged its obligation in fitting the L.P.G Kit to the Car. Opposite Party No.1 did not cheat the complainant nor it had the intention to cheat anybody muchless the complainant. Opposite party not has rendered service as promised. If the RTO insisted to produce ARAI Certificate, it is for the complainant to approach the competent authority and obtain the certificate. Opposite party No.1 had not undertaken to get the ARAI Certificate. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> <br /> 4. In the version the contention of the opposite party No.2 M/s. Enviro Auto Gas Technology Pvt. Ltd. is as under:-<br /> <br /> There is no allegation of deficiency in service or defect in the material supplied to the complainant. The endorsement issued by the RTO has to be questioned before the appropriate authority and it does not mean that the material supplied to the complainant has been identified by the RTO as defective. There is no allegation or defect in the material supplied and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2. No invalid documents were furnished to the complainant. On these grounds opposite party No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In support of the respective contentions the complainant and Proprietor of opposite party No.1 have filed their affidavits. Opposite partyNo.2 has not adduced any evidence. We have heard arguments on both sides.<br /> <br /> 6. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on <br /> the part of the opposite parties or any of them?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in<br /> the complaint?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings on the above points are in the Negative for the following:-<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. In the entire compliant, there is no allegation that the L.P.G Kit installed to the Car belonging to the complainant is defective. The complainant claims to have paid Rs.21,600/- for installation of L.P.G Kit, where as opposite party No.1 states that the complainant paid only Rs.8,737/- for that purpose. After installation of the L.P.G Kit, opposite party No.1 furnished certain documents to the complainant for the purpose of getting endorsement in the RC Book regarding fitment of L.P.G Kit. Thereupon, RTO directed the complainant to produce ARAI Certificate stating that Certificate No.893B/2005-169, dated: 11.03.2005 is not valid as per Central Government Notification dated: 15.09.2005. The contention of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 has undertaken to get necessary endorsement made in the RC Book regarding conversion of the fuel in the Car. But in the version both the opposite parties have denied, that it is their responsibility to get necessary endorsement made in the RC Book or to provide ARAI Certificate to the complainant. Nothing is placed on record to show that either opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2 had undertaken to furnish ARAI Certificate to the complainant to facilitate him to get an endorsement made in the RC Book. If the RTO directed the complainant to produce ARAI Certificate, it is for the complainant to approach the competent authority in that regards and obtain the certificate required by the RTO. In the absence of material to show that it is the responsibility of the opposite parties to furnish such certificate, we are unable to make out any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Admittedly, the complainant availed the services of opposite party No.1 for installation of L.P.G Kit to his Car and opposite party No.1 rendered service in that regard. There is no allegation of any defect in the material supplied. That being so the non-providing of ARAI Certificate by the opposite parties will not amount to deficiency in service, when there was no agreement to provide such certificate. Therefore, when the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he is not entitled to relief prayed for in the complaint. It is open to the complainant to approach to competent authority and obtain ARAI Certificate. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> <br /> 2. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2008.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />