C. C.  Case No.  2   of  2023

            Naorem Biju Singh, aged 28 years, S/o. N. Deben Singh,  a resident of Keinou Thongkha Makha Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur, Bishnupur District, Manipur.

                                                                        ..... Complainant.

            - VERSUS -

1.         The Imphal Finance Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager, Bishnupur.

2.         The Proprietor/Managing Director/Sales Executive/Sales Manager/Manager, the Imphal Motors, Khoyathong, near ABC Godown, PIN-795001, Imphal.

. . . Respondents.

                                                PRESENT

1. Shri Y. Lokendro Singh, President

2. Smt. S. Shadhana Devi, Member

3. Shri S. Devananda Singh, Member

For the complainant                    :    Premchand Salam, Priyobala L., M.                                                                       Sanahanbi, Y. Gyannanda, Advocates

For the respondent No. 1 : Ng. Jotendro Singh, Geetamani                                                                            Waikhom, N. Jinita, etc  Advocates.

For the respondent No. 2 : Nemo

Date of hearing                :   01-03-2024

Date of Judgement         :   07-03-2024

ORDER

1.         The  complainant  had purchased one Honda Activa on 14-02-2020 from the respondent No. 2 under agreement of purchased/hypothecation with the respondent No. 1. The complainant had also paid all the necessary charges  for registration certificate and insurance to the respondent No. 1. The complainant has been giving EMI of the said loan to the respondent No. 1. After some time, one day the complainant met an accident while he was plying the said vehicle. Therefore, the complainant claimed the insurance but could not obtain insurance due non-available of registration certificate. Therefore, the complainant demanded to handover the registration book and insurance documents to the respondent No. 1 for claiming insurance. But, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 could not handover the registration certificate of the said two wheeler vehicle.  Hence, the complainant had filed this complaint claiming to pay a sum of (i) Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation; (ii) Rs. 5,00,000/- illegal/malpractices to the complainant.

2.         The respondent No. 1 except respondent No. 2 had contested the case by filing written statement thereby refusing the claim of the complainant.

3.         From the above pleadings,  issues were not framed. However from the above pleadings, the points for determination emerged as under :-

            (i)        Whether the complainant is a consumer or not ?

            (ii)       Whether the complainant had purchased one Honda  Activa on 14-              02-2020 from the respondent No. 2  under hypothecation with the                        respondent No. 1 not ?  

            (iii)     Whether  the respondents No. 1 & 2 refused to handover the                          registration certificate to the complainant or not ?  If so, is there                 deficiency of service on the part of respondents No. 1 & 2 or not ?

            (iv)      Whether the complainant is entitled the reliefs claimed by him or                 not ?  

4.         We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the records very carefully and they have also submitted written arguments.

5.         Regarding point for determination No. 1 & 2 : - The  complainant had purchased  one Honda Activa  on 14-02-2020 from the respondent No. 2 under hypothecation with the respondent No. 1. The complainant had filed the sale certificate; reciept copy; insurance certificate and instalment card issued by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had also stated that the respondent No. 1 is the financer and paid a sum of Rs. 67,700/- to the respondent No. 2 in favour of the complainant under hypothecation for purchase of the said Honda Activa. The EMI of the said loan is Rs. 3700/- for a period of 24 months commencing from 15-03-2020 upto 15-02-2022.  The respondent No. 1 has also stated that the total loan amount including interest of 3% per month is Rs. 1,04,215/-. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 61,550/- to the respondent No. 1 excluding the late fine. The respondent No. 1 further stated that the complainant did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 42,665/- to the respondent No. 1.

6.         The Ld. councel for the complainant submits that the complainant had already deposited a sum of Rs. 33,000/- as advance/down payment. Thereafter, the complainant had paid the EMI amounting to Rs. 61,950/- to the respondent No. 1. Thus, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 94,950/- in total including advance/down payment. He is willing to pay due loan amounts if the respondent No. 1 handover the registration certificate of his Honda Activa.

7.         As per section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the term service could be understand in two ways (i) any description which is made available to potential users; (ii) Certain  particulars kinds of activities such as banking; financing; insurance; transport; processing; supply of electrical or  other energy; telecom; boarding; lodging; housing construction; entertainment; amusement; provision of news or other information. The complainant is included in the activities of second catagory. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 within the meaning of consumer under section 2(7) and 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thus, this point for determination Nos. 1 & 2  is decided in favour of the complainant.

8.         Regarding point for determination No. 3 :- The complainant has paid all the necessary charges for  registration certificate to the respondent No. 1. But, the respondents No. 1  failed to handover the registration certificate to the complainant. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the licence for selling two wheelers of the respondent No. 2 has been already cancelled by the authorities concerned before the respondent No. 2 sold the said vehicle to the complainant. Moreover, the respondent No. 1 had also taken the necessry charges for registration certificate and insurance from the complainant. There is ex facie deficiency in service on the part of respondents  within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In addition, it may be noted that ‘unfair trade practice’ is “a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice. Both, ‘deficiency and ‘unfair trade practice’ are well and truly evident in this case. Therefore, these points for determination No. 3 is decided in favour of the complainant.

9.         Regarding point for determination No. 4 : As per section 39 and  section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is necessity for registration of the  vehicle and insurance against third party risk respectively. The vehicle  must be carried a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. The vehicle should not be drive in any public place or in any other place without registration certificate and insurance against third party risk. However, the complainant’s Honda Activa could not be get registration certificate. Therefore, his vehicle could not be driven in  public places. The complainant could not drive the said vehicle due to non-registration. We have to see from a consumer point of view as to what is wilful or default when interpreting a particular  provision. It is a matter of fact that the said vehicle is not registered with the Transport Department, Government of Manipur.

10.       A consumer is entitled to file a complaint under the Act, if there is any deficiency in service provided or rendered by the service provider.  The  complainant has certainly suffered a great deal of helpless and disappointment and mental harassment. It might happen with anyone that while purchasing vehicle from respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Most of us will penic. The respondents are to love their neighbours and must not injure your neighbours. The respondents must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

11.       The Consumer Protection Act came into being in the year 1986 (now the Consumer Protection Act in 2019) with the sole aim to protect the interest of the consumer by providing a cheap and quick remedy. In view of above discussions, the point for determination No. 4 is decided in favour of the complainant. Thus, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable. 

12.       Now the matter remains regarding the reliefs claim by the complainant. In view of the above discussions, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2  shall

(i)        refund the amount of Rs. 94,950/-  in favour of the complainant and the complainant should return the said vehicle Honda Activa to the respondents;

(ii)       compensate the complainant with an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for causing mental agony and loss to the complainant.

(iii)     pay a  sum of Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of the complaint.

13.       The  respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are directed to comply jointly/severally with above directions within 2 (two) weeks from the date of this order, failing which  it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order till payment and  the complainant is also at liberty to file criminal case against them for the offence punishable under section 72(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            The complaint is allowed.

            Announced.

         Sd/-                                                       Sd/-                                            Sd/-

     Member.                                             Member.                                   President.