DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th day of September 2018
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 13/03/2017
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
CC/53/2017
Fazalul Rahiman,
S/o Abdu Rahiman, Vallikkadan House,
Pombra (PO), Palakkad – 678 595.
(By Adv.P.Sulaiman)
Vs
The Manager/Proprietor,
S.S Yamaha (Choice Yamaha).
Kunthipuzha, Mannarkkad,
678 502.
(By Adv.Ajayakumar)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the case.
In order to purchase a Yamaha Motor Cycle, on 15.12.2016 complainant went to the opposite party’s showroom and understood from there that Rs.12,300/- has to paid in ready cash and the vehicle would be registered, for the balance amount of 58,608/-, finance could be arranged through Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited and repayment could be arranged in monthly instalments. Accordingly complainant on 15.12.2016 paid Rs.12,300/- to the opposite party and a receipt number: RV1022 was given to him. On 16.12.2016 as per policy number :- 76270131603000001429, insurance of the vehicle was effected with New India Assurance Company Limited, as per form 21 sale certificate dated.22.12.2016 Yamaha Motor Cycle – Yamaha Alpha Cyan Blue with engine number – E3N8E 0440884 was delivered to the complainant by the opposite party on 22.12.2016. Complainant pleads that he was told by the opposite party that as per the application given to Ottapalam Sub RTO temporary registration would be made for 30 days from 03.01.2017 to 01.02.2017 and RC would be sent by post to complainant’s address. Accordingly registration charge amount was paid to the opposite party by the complainant. Then on 30/01/2017, when enquiry was made of registration the opposite party replied that registration was not done due to the agent not taking steps for registration. Accordingly complainant went to Ottapalam Sub RTO office on 01.02.2017 and paid registration chalan of Rs.440/-; but on that date since RTO had gone for a meeting at Palakkad, registration could not be done on the last date of registration (01/02/2017) and temporary registration got expired and cancelled. Hence the complainant had to get a certificate from Mannarkkad Police Station certifying that complainant is not involved in any criminal cases and only after getting this certificate and payment of registration fees of Rs.440/- and a penalty of Rs.2,300/- in Sub RTO office Ottapalam, complainant’s vehicle could be registered in Ottapalam Sub RTO office. According to the complainant, for all these difficulties opposite party is responsible because opposite party’s wrong deed caused the complainant and his family financial difficulties and mental agony. Therefore complainant prays to this Hon’ble forum to direct the opposite party for payment of excess registration fees of Rs.440/-, fine amount of Rs.2,300/- for delayed registration and payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant for his having to get a clearance certificate/NOC from Mannarkkad Police Station and loss suffered by him due to his inability to go for his job.
The complaint was admitted and notice was sent to the opposite party to enter appearance and file version. In his version opposite party admits statements by the complainant in his complaint that on 15.12.2016 to purchase a Yamaha Motor Cycle complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party and that if Rs.12,500/- is paid in cash two wheeler Yamaha vehicle would be registered, for the balance of Rs,.58,608/- finance could be arranged through Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited by monthly instalment repayment. But the opposite party denies the complainant’s statements that if Rs.12,300/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party shop, the documents for registration would be given, but according to the opposite party the complainant himself has to register the vehicle and RV1022 receipt was received by the complainant from the opposite party is not correct; after receiving from the complainant Rs.7,300/- out of Rs.12,300/- and the balance amount was not paid by the complainant so far, as contended by the opposite party. Opposite party agrees that as per 16.12.2016 dated insurance company policy and on 22.12.2016 as per form 21 sale certificate vehicle was delivered by the opposite party to the complainant, but opposite party denies complainant’s statements as false that after doing temporary registration for 30 days RC book by post would be sent to the complainant and for which charge was also recovered from the complainant by the opposite party because the concerned vehicle registration should be done by the complainant himself by presenting himself. According to the opposite party, the agreement was violated by the complainant by paying only Rs.7,300/- out of Rs.12,300/-; even then, in order to avoid delay for registration of the said vehicle, the documents were given by the opposite party on 23.01.2017 which is proved by complainant’s signature in the register maintained by the opposite party acknowledging the receipt of the invoice letter, insurance policy etc.. by the complainant dated.23.01.2017. The opposite party also denies the complainant’s statement that the agent who was entrusted registration work did not do that work on time. According to the opposite party, having received the documents for registration on 23.01.2017 complainant did not go to Ottapalam Sub RTO office and take any steps for his concerned vehicle registration which amounted to default and deficiency on the part of the complainant and for any physical and financial difficulties caused to the complainant the opposite party is not liable. Further on 01.02.2017, when complainant went for registration to Ottapalam Sub RTO office, complainant could not do registration only because Ottapalam SRTO went for an official meeting at Palakkad and not due to any default and deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. The opposite party also contends that he is not responsible for any difficulties caused to the complainant in obtaining No Objection Certificate from Mannarkkad police station and for obtaining No Objection Certificate this legal formality has to be complied by the vehicle registering complainant for registering his vehicle. Also the delay occurred for complainant’s vehicle registration was only due to non presentation of all documents required for registration before SRTO, Ottapalam and not due to any default and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Also for financial loss occurred to the complainant due to legal formalities opposite party is not liable and opposite party also contends that since, the complainant did not produce the necessary documents in time to Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, the opposite party could receive the amount due to him from Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited only on 06.02.2017 which also amounted to dereliction of duty on the part of complainant. Hence opposite party contends that complaint should be dismissed with cost to this opposite party.
Both complainant and the opposite party filed affidavits; the complainant also filed additional affidavit. The documents filed by the complainant consisted of Exts.A1 to A9 which were marked and documents filed by opposite party comprised Exts.B1 to B3 which were also marked. Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and his witness was cross examined as PW2. Both Parties were heard. Complainant filed IA to get his “forged” signature examined by an expert and opposite party filed counter in IA; but since at the time of hearing complainant submitted there is no need to send his signature for expert opinion IA was dismissed.
The following issues arise in this case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, the relief and remedy available to the complainant?
-
Issues 1 & 2
On 15.12.2016, the complainant purchased a Yamaha Motor Cycle from the opposite party after agreeing the terms and conditions of the purchase of the vehicle and opposite party collecting from the complainant Rs.12,300/- as per the original receipt dated.15.12.2016 marked as Ext.A1 issued by the opposite party – RV No.1022 dated.15.12.2016. The vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited and a copy of cover note issued by the insurance company showing that this vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Company Limited is marked as Ext.A2 which also shows the particulars of the vehicle insured, date of commencement and expiry of insurance. A copy of retail invoice evidencing the purchase of the vehicle issued by Cheerans Auto Agencies is marked as Ext.A3 which shows invoice number, name of customer, net amount payable for the vehicle, hypothecated to Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, Palakkad. As per form 21 sale certificate dated.22.12.2016 YAMAHA CYGNUS ALPHA was delivered by Cheerans Auto Agencies, Palakkad to the complainant. A copy of form 21 sale certificate is marked as Ext.A4 which shows details of the vehicle. A copy of the Policy Schedule Cum Certificate Of Insurance of the concerned vehicle was marked as Ext.A5 which shows details of insurance policy. On 22.12.2016 as per the application given to Ottapalam Sub RTO office temporary certificate of registration was issued by additional registering authority, RTO, Palakkad, a copy of which is marked as Ext.A6 which shows that temporary registration has been granted to the complainant’s vehicle and the registration is valid from 03.01.17 to 01.02.17. According to the complainant only on 31.01.2017 all the documents entrusted by him to the opposite party for registration of his vehicle were returned to him by the opposite party and he went to Ottapalam Sub RTO office on 01.02.2017 and paid registration chalan of Rs.440/- which is evident from Ext.A7. Since the last date of temporary registration of complainant’s vehicle has expired on 01.02.2017, its temporary registration was cancelled and for getting NOC from Mannarkkad Police Station an application was given on 02.02.17 by the complainant to the Sub Inspector of Police, a copy of which is marked as Ext.A8. The No Objection Certificate was obtained on 03.02.2017, a copy of which is marked as Ext.A9 which certifies that the complainant is not involved in any criminal cases.
In his version opposite party admits statement made by the complainant in his complaint that on 15.12.2016 to purchase a Yamaha Motor Cycle, complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party’s shop and if Rs.12,300/- is paid in cash, the two wheeler Yamaha vehicle would be registered, for the balance amount of Rs.58,608/-, finance could be arranged through Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited by repayment by monthly instalments, but denies other statements of the complainant in his complaint. The opposite party has filed three documentary evidences to prove his case namely Exts.B1, B2 & B3. Ext.B1 is the receipt number RV1022 which shows that Rs.7,300/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party. But opposite party contends that the balance amount was not paid by the complainant so far. Ext.B2 shows that the complainant has signed in the register maintained by the opposite party and acknowledged that the documents like invoice letter, insurance policy etc.. were received by the complainant from the opposite party which proves contention of the opposite party that the documents for registration were given to the complainant by the opposite party on 23.01.2017 itself. Ext.B3 is a copy of the email extract received by the opposite party from Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited which proves that since the complainant did not produce the documents in time to the financier (Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited), the amount to be received by the opposite party was received from the above financier only on 06.02.2017. Hence the opposite party contends that there is dereliction of duty on the part of the complainant and complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
We have gone through the contents of the affidavits filed by both the complainant and the opposite party and perused the documentary evidences produced by them before this Forum and observe that the opposite party has handed over the documents for registration on 23.01.2017 itself but the complainant has taken steps for registration of his vehicle only from 01.02.2017 which demonstrates dereliction of duty on the part of the complainant; we also understand that since the Sub RTO, Ottapalam had gone to attend an official meeting at Palakkad, registration of complainant’s vehicle could not be done by him on 01.02.2017 which also is not due to any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and also mental agony and financial difficulties caused to the complainant as a result of complainant having to obtain No Objection Certificate from Mannarkkad Police Station authorities as per the instruction of Ottapalam Sub RTO is also not due to any default on the part of the opposite party, but only due to default of the complainant of not having taken any steps for registration by the complainant before 1st February 2017, the last date of registration; further, we also view that since complainant has not handed over necessary documents to Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, the opposite party did not receive the amount to be received by the opposite party from the above vehicle financier which is also observed as another default occurred on the part of the complainant. Above all, we also view that complainant has paid Rs.7,300/- (Rupees seven thousand three hundred only) only to the opposite party and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) was not seen paid by the complainant so far and even if Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) was actually paid by Mr.Noufal on account of the complainant, we are of the opinion that complainant has not been able to prove through documentary evidences to the satisfaction of the opposite party that Mr.Noufal is a student of the complainant; further opposite party has not seen admitted receipt of Rs.5,000/- Rupees five thousand only) from Mr.Noufal in adjustment of the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- Rupees five thousand only) still due to the opposite party by the complainant.
Under the above circumstances we decide to dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of September 2018.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Original Receipt Voucher Number RV No.1022 dated.10/12/2016 issued by
opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A2 - Photocopy of Motor Vehicle Cover Note issued by New India Assurance Company
Limited to the complainant
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of Retail Invoice No.02-PY-M-VS-3055 dated.17.12.2016 issued
By Cheerans Auto Agencies to the complainant
Extt.A4 - Sales Certificate issued by Cheerans Auto Agencies to the complainant
dated.22.12.2016
Ext.A5 - Photocopy of insurance policy certificate issued by New India Assurance Company
Limited to the complainant
Ext.A6 - Photocopy of Temporary Certificate of Registration of the vehicle issued by
Additional RTO, Palakkad
Ext.A7 - Photocopy of Additional fees receipt given by SRTO, Ottapalam
Ext.A8 - Photocopy of application given by the complainant to Mannrakkad Sub Inspector
of Police to obtain NOC
Ext.A9 - Photocopy of certificate issued by Mannarkkad Police Station to the complainant
Dated.03.02.2017
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party
Ext.B1 - True copy of Receipt Voucher Number RV No.1022 dated.10/12/2016 issued by
opposite party to the complainant
Ext.B2 - True copy of register duly maintained by the opposite party
Ext.B3 - Photocopy of email extract received by the opposite party from Hinduja Leyland
Finance Limited
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Fazalul Rahiman
PW2 - Noufal
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
Nil
