Karnataka

Kolar

CC/43/2016

Sri.N.Narayanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Teknik Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 29/06/2016

Date of Order: 29/11/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB…..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 43 OF 2016

Sri.N.Narayanappa,

Aged About 47 Years,

S/o. Narasimhappa,

R/at: Guttahalli Village,

Gullahalli Post, Via Kamasamudram,

Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District-563129.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. N.Narayanappa, Advocate)                        ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

TEKNIK MOTORS,

No.10/A, 17^th “E” Cross,

Indiranagar 2^nd Stage,

Bangalore-560 038.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. R.A.Mohan, Advocate)                    …. Opposite Party.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has preferred this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking directions against the OP to pay Rs.23,608/- with registration fee and additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he purchased a two wheeler vehicle “ROYAL ENFIELD 350cc” bike from the OP bearing Temporary registration No. KA-03-XN-8396/15-16, Chassis No. ME3U3SC1FM506950 and Engine No. U3S5C1FM64680 for a total sale price of Rs.1,51,518/- which is inclusive of life tax, registration charges, insurance, etc,.  And that, the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- on 23.08.2015 vide receipt No.601702, Rs.49,500/- on 18.12.2015 by way of cash to the OP.  And remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to the OP through HDFC Bank by way hypothecation loan. Thereafter on 21.12.2015 he took delivery of the said vehicle from the OP along with sale certificate of the said vehicle. 

(b)    Further the complainant has contended that, at the time of taking delivery of the said vehicle from the OP, one Mr. Kiran, the sales executive of the OP, had told that, life tax and registration fee would be refunded back to the complainant by way of cheque through RPAD, but OP has failed to send the same and hence complainant approached the OP on three to four occasions, but OP did not give response. 

(c)    The further contention of the complainant is that, though OP collected amount towards registration fee, life tax and insurance, etc., from the complainant pertaining to the said vehicle it had failed to do its obligations.  As a result of which the complainant being a practicing advocate he was not able to use the vehicle in and around the city area without valid registration.  And as such the OP is liable to pay additional compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

(d)    The complainant further submitted that, he approached concerned office of ARTO, K.G.F. for the purpose of getting registration of said vehicle, for which, the officials had told him to pay life tax along with penalty nearly a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards delay, which is on account of delay and negligent act rendered by the OP. 

 

(e)    Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated: 08.02.2016 to the OP calling upon them to pay back the amount pertaining to life tax and registration fee, so that, he could register the said vehicle with the ARTO, K.G.F., but it went in vain.  Hence this complaint.

 

(f)     Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted List of documents as mentioned below:-

(i) Copy of the Form No.14.

(ii) Copy of the KMV 19 Temporary Certificate of Registration.

(iii) Copy of the Sale Certificate.

(iv) Copy of the Form No.22.

(v) Copy of the Tax Invoice

(vi) Cpy of the Insurance

(vii) Copy of the additional particulars to be completed only in the case of transport vehicle other than motor cab.

(viii) Copy of the license

(ix) Copy of the legal Notice

(x) Copy of the RPAD receipt

(xi) Copy of the acknowledgement.

 

03.   In spite of issuance of notice to the OP from this Forum, OP did not choose to appear before this Forum and contest the matter.  Hence on 01.08.2016 OP placed exparte.

 

04.   However the complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief on 09.11.2016 and also written arguments on 26.10.2016.  Heard oral arguments of the complainant.

 

05.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

(B) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(D) What order?

06.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A):-  In the Negative

POINT (B):-  Does not arise for our consideration.

POINT (C):-  As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A):-

07.   On perusing the pleadings along with documents and affidavit evidence produced by the complainant, it is a fact that, on 28.11.2015 the complainant has purchased a two wheeler vehicle “ROYAL ENFIELD 350cc” bike from the OP bearing Temporary registration No. KA-03-XN-8396/15-16, Chassis No. ME3U3SC1FM506950 and Engine No. U3S5C1FM64680 for a total consideration of Rs.1,51,518/- which is inclusive of life tax, registration charges, insurance, etc,. 

 

08.   Now the main allegation of the complainant is that, at the time of taking delivery of the said vehicle from the OP, one Mr. Kiran, the sales executive of the OP, had told that, life tax and registration fee would be paid back to the complainant by way of cheque through RPAD, but OP has failed to send the same.  Further allegation of the complainant is that, though OP collected Rs.5,000/- on 23.08.2015, Rs.49,500/- on 18.12.2015 and Rs.1,00,000/- the loan sanctioned from the HDFC Bank against Mortgaged/Hypothecation on 18.12.2015, i.e.,  in total Rs.1,54,500/- towards purchase of the said vehicle from the complainant which is inclusive of registration fee, life tax and insurance, etc., but it had failed to make registration of the said vehicle and also to pay life tax.  But however in spite of issuance of notice, OP remained absent and hence it placed exparte.  Therefore all the allegations made by the complainant were unchallenged one. 

09.   But somehow we cannot hold deficiency of service on the part of the OP until we go through the matter carefully.  As per the allegations made in the complaint the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- on 23.08.2015, Rs.49,500/- on 18.12.2015 and Rs.1,00,000/- (loan taken from the HDFC Bank) on 18.12.2015, i.e.,  in total the complainant has paid Rs.1,54,500/- to the OP towards purchase of the said vehicle.  But, on perusing the Tax Invoice dated: 28.11.2015 issued by the OP the showroom price of the said vehicle is mentioned as Rs.1,29,392/- which includes Basic Price Rs.1,13,006/- and VAT of Rs.16,385.87.  Therefore the excess amount comes to Rs.25,108/- but in the plaint the complainant has sought for Rs.23,608/-.  How he could claim this amount? And nowhere it is stated by the complainant that, on which basis he sought Rs.23,608/-.  And further it is also pertinent to note that, though complainant has pleaded that, he made cash payment of Rs.5,000/- on 23.08.2015, and Rs.49,500/- on 18.12.2015 to the OP, to substantiate these allegations he has not produced any receipts. 

 

10.   Furthermore on 21.12.2015 complainant took delivery of the said vehicle from the OP and the temporary registration of the said vehicle is valid till 19.01.2016.  And while taking delivery one Mr.Kiran, told him that, they will send back the amount paid towards registration and life tax through cheque by way of RPAD.  Regarding this statement of the complainant, the complainant has not produced any document to prove that, in what extent Mr. Kiran has told that, OP will send back the amount pertaining to life tax and registration charges.  Hence this oral contention of the complainant cannot be accepted. 

 

11.   Further on perusal of the whole documents the complainant has failed to prove that, the cause of action arose at Kolar as the whole document produced by the complainant pertaining to the payment made in Bangalore jurisdiction.  Admittedly the OP’s show-room is at Bangalore.  Hence this Forum has lack of jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Accordingly, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate jurisdictional Forum.  Hence we answered point (A) in the negative.

     

POINT (B):

12.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the present complaint stands Dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                        MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT