IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 28th day of February, 2018.
Filed on 07/08//2017
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.211/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Ambili.K 1. The Manager
Niyas Bhavan, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd,
Mahadevikkadu.P.O, Regional Office,
Karthikappally, 2nd Floor,Tutus Tower
Alappuzha. NH.47,Bypass, Padivattom,
Cochin-682024
2. Authorised Signatory
Hercules Motor-NEXA
Authorised Maruti Nexa Dealer
Premium Vehicle,
Punnapra,
Alappuzha.
3. R.T.O,
R.T.O. Office,
Mini Civil Station,
Kayamkulam.
ORDER
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in precise is as follows:-
The complainant on 6th July purchased a `Maruti Beleno Sigma (p) Premium Silver car from the opposite parties. Prior to the purchasing of the said vehicle, the 2nd opposite party had assured the complainant that the registration of the vehicle and the other related affairs as to the vehicle would be arranged by them. However the complainant approached the RTO, Kayamkulam for the purpose of getting her vehicle registered. On all such occasions, the RTO was disinclined to effect registration of the vehicle citing the reason that it was not recorded in Form 21 if the vehicle’s engine was in compliance with BS IV standards. Whenever the 2nd opposite party was approached, the 2nd opposite party displayed an indifferent attitude to the complainant. What is more the complainant was made to run from pillar to post for the best reasons best known to the opposite parties. Thereafter on 10th August 2017, the 2nd opposite party was ultimately inclined to affect registration of the vehicle. Nonetheless when the complainant obtained the RC Book, it was realized that nothing was stated in the RC Book as to BS IV compliance of the vehicle’s engine. The opposite parties were exploiting the ignorance of the complainant regarding the procedure of the registration of the vehicle and allied affairs. The opposite parties caused immeasurable mental agony to the complainant. The complainant got aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. Notice was sent. The 3rd respondent turned up and contented that it was the shortcoming on the part of the dealer to have issued Form 21 without sufficient data enabling them to register the vehicle.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant, and the document is marked as Exbt A1. The opposite parties adduced no evidence.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the RC Book with the endorsement of BS IV thereof?
(b) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
5. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, we carefully perused the materials available before us on record. The complainant’s specific case is that the complainant had to undergo untold hardships and struggle to get his vehicle purchased from the opposite parties. The concerned opposite parties had tendered assurance to the complainant that they would arrange everything for the complainant’s vehicle to get it registered. However the complainant had to approach the RTO of Kayamkulam more than on a couple of occasions until ultimately the same got registered on 10th August 2017. Thus though at length the vehicle was registered, and the complainant received the RC Book, the complainant got to learn that the RC Book was not carrying no endorsement regarding the compliance of BS IV standard which is mandatory. Though the complaint approached the opposite party on several occasions, the opposite parties always turned a cold shoulder towards this issue. Above all the opposite parties were seemingly disinclined to turn up before this Forum and challenge the complainant’s case. It is pertinent to note that going by the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court, vehicles with engines complaint with BS IV standards should be sold out from April 2017. In this context failure to state as to the BS standards of the vehicle’s engine in the RC Book is a serious deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Thus going by the materials available before us in its entirety we are of the considered view that the complainant’s case merit acceptance. Needless to say the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. In the result, complaint allowed the opposite parties are directed to effect endorsement in RC Book as to the material vehicle’s BS standards forthwith. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
Pronounced in open Forum on this 28th day of February 2018.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) : .
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of RC Book
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
