Complaint filed on: 14-12-2015

Disposed on: 25-01-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF JANUARY–2017

CC. NO.139/2015

PRESENT

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

SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A. LLB, MEMBER

SMT. GIRIJA, B.A. LADY MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S:

Sri. Arun Kumar .N

S/o Nagaraju,

Aged about 30 years,

R/at 5^th Cross,

Hosallaiahna Thota,

Batawadi,

Tumakuru City.

(By Sri/Smt. Vasanth Kumar H.L. - Advocate)

-V/s-

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1.       The Manager,

            M/s T.V.S.Motor Company,

            DBR Bridge, No.383, 16^th Main,

            3^rd Block, Koramangala,

Bengaluru City – 560 034.

2.       The Manager,

          M/s SAFA Motors,

          R.S.Complex, Near Gubbi Gate,

          Check Post, B.H.Road,

          Tumakuru City – 572 101.

(OP-1 Sri/Smt. T.R.Chikkaranganna - Advocate)

(OP-2- Ex-parte)

O R D E R

BY SMT.PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

        The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of OPS and prays to direct the OPS to arrange for permanent permit for the complainant’s vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06-C-8258 and further prays to direct the OPS to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards monetary loss and mental agony along with 18% interest PA from the date of complaint to till realization.    

The brief facts of the complaint is as under:-

2.       The complainant purchased T.V.S. Auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-06-C-8268 dated 10.01.2013 from the OP No.2  and while purchasing the same, the complainant has paid Rs.1,60,000/- by cash towards consideration amount including all accessories. 

            The complainant submitted that the OP No.2 had assured and undertook to arrange for issuing free permanent permit to the above said vehicle within one year from the date of purchase of vehicle.  Accordingly, the OP No.2 had arranged for temporary permit to the above said vehicle for the time being till arrangement of permanent permit.  Believing the assurance given by the OP No.2, the complainant has purchased the above said vehicle by obtaining loan from the Dena Bank situated at Yogi Complex, Ashoka Nagar, 1^st Cross, Tumkur vide bank loan account No.12445401149 and the complainant undertakes to pay the monthly installment and he also hypothecated his vehicle to the Dena Bank.

            The complainant further submitted that on the assurance given by the OP No.2 to get the permanent permit, the complainant was running the vehicle on road for a few months under rental basis under temporary permit.  Due to the said temporary permit, the said vehicle was caught hold by the police several times for which the complainant had paid fine by way of penalty.  Hence, the complainant requested OP No.2 on several times to get permanent permit to his vehicle.  The OP No.2 had given a false assurance to the complainant that he will arrange the same very shortly. 

            The complainant further submitted that due to closing of the showroom of OP No.2 the complainant stopped running of his vehicle for not getting the permanent permit, however the rate of interest on the principal amount borrowed started to increase day by day for non running of the vehicle.  Hence, the complainant suffered financial crisis and was also put to great mental and physical depression.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 21.08.2015 and this was duly served to the OP No.1, but the OP No.2 knowing the fact has refused the same and the same was returned to the sender with a shara “addressee left”.

            The complainant further submitted that in spite of receipt of notice, the OP No.1 instead of arranging for permanent permit to the above said vehicle, the OP No.1 had issued a reply notice dated 09.09.2015 stating that it is the responsibility to get the permanent permit is on the shoulder of the complainant only and the OPS have not breached their duty and terms and conditions of the company.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint.      

3.      Upon service of notice, the OP No.1 appeared and filed his version.  After given sufficient opportunity, the complainant had not taken steps. Hence, the complaint against the OP No.2 dismissed.

          The OP No.1 in his version submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable both in law ad as on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The OP No.1 further submitted that the OP No.1 is the main dealer of Karnataka State with respect to the products of TVS Motor Company and they are dealing with the vehicles manufactured by the TVS Motors Co. Ltd. and the OP No.2 is the dealer of Tumkur District and having their show room at Tumkur City and that the complainant is the customer of OP No.2 and not this OP No.1

          The OP No.1 further submitted that the transaction with regard to T.V.S. Auto rickshaw had occurred between OP No.2 and complainant and not with OP No.1.  The OP No.1 further submitted that they have no knowledge about the assurance given by the OP No.2 with regard to getting permanent permit to the complainant’s vehicle.

The OP No.1 further submitted that they have replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant stating that it is not the responsibility of the OP No.1 to get the permanent permit to the complainant’s vehicle and it is the duty of the complainant to approach the concerned authority within the time.

          The OP No.1 further submitted that they have denied all the allegations made by the complainant in to-to and that among other grounds it was requested by the OP No.1 to dismiss the complaint with cost in the interest of justice. 

          4.       In order to prove their case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence.  The complainant marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P32. Heard the arguments and then posted the case for orders.

5.      On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the following issues will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPS?

2. What Order?

6.       Our answer to the above issues are as under:-

Issue No.1     :         In the Negative.

Issue No.2     :         As per order below

REASONS

Issue No.1:-

7.  On perusal of pleadings evidence and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased T.V.S. Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-06-C-8268 dated:10.01.2013 from the OP No.2 and paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- cash and for rest of the amount, the complainant had obtained loan from the Dena Bank vide loan account No.12445401149 and the complainant hypothecated the above said vehicle to the Dena Bank.  The contention of the complainant is that the OP No.2 had assured the complainant that he will arrange for permanent permit to the above said vehicle, but till today the OP No.1 or OP No.2 did not get the permanent permit to his vehicle.

8.       On the contrary, the OP No.1 submitted that all the transactions were held between the complainant and OP No.2 and not OP No.1 and thereby the complainant is not consumer of the OP No.1.  The OP No.1 further contended that he has no knowledge about the assurance given by the OP No.2 with regard to getting permanent permit to the complainant’s vehicle and that the complainant has to get permanent permit to this vehicle as per the rules and regulations.

9.  On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant as per Ex.P27, the complainant ahs purchased the TVS Auto Rickshaw from the OP No.2. The complainant has contended that the OP No.2 had assured to get the permanent permit to his vehicle.  In this regard, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that the OP No.2 or OP No.1 has assured to get permanent permit to the vehicle of the complainant.  Further, the complainant also failed to produce any documents to show that the OP No.1 or OP No.2 has collected money to get permanent permit to the vehicle of the complainant.   

10.     The complainant has purchased the TVS Auto Rickshaw from the OP No.2 on 10.01.2013 and the complainant has issued legal notice/Ex.P23 to OP No.2 on 29/08/2015 and gave a police complaint on 07.12.2015 and it is seen that between the said period the complainant has not produced any documents to show that the complainant has made any letter correspondence with OP No.2 with regard to permanent permit.  Further, on perusal of Ex.P27 i.e. Performa quotation of OP No.2, wherein the OP No.2 has not assured to get permanent permit or the OP No.2 has not collected money towards getting permanent permit. Further with regard to the OP No.2, the complainant had failed to taken steps against the OP No.2. Hence, on the discussion held above and viewed from any angle, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the Negative.    

Issue No.(2):-

          In the result, we proceed to pass the following:-

: O R D E R:

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2. Supply free order copy to the parties.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25^th day of January 2017)

LADY MEMBER                     MEMBER          PRESIDENT