SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT 

This is an application U/s.12 of the CP Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant, in short; is that he purchased a Renault Duster 1461CC Diesel LM.V. RXLDCI saloon car (year of Manufactur-2013) from OP-3 M/s. Renault India Pvt. Ltd. of 225C, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700020 for his personal use at a price of Rs. 5,94,500/- against Sale invoice No. VMPL-1617-01983 dated 24.04.2017 and RTO, Alipore, South 24 Parganas issued temporary registration No. WB-20-TN-1961 of the subject car. The car was transported to Malda for permanent registration with the RTO, Malda. RTO, Malda denied the registration of car on the ground that home location of the subject car is not updated in the internet. Immediately, the matter was communicated to the OP-1 vide letter dated 07.06.2017 and e-mail. Such letter and e-mail were unattended. Finding no other alternative, complainant also issued legal notice dated 13.11.2017 and e-mail dated 08.06.2017 to the OP-3. OP-3 registered the complaint (ID4-03503784) with an assurance to provide a resolution at the earliest. But no remedial action was taken.

Further case of the complainant is that neither the OP-1 nor OP-3 has disclosed at the time of sale that the subject car was sold earlier and run for 28,500 KM. There is unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs to sell old and used car as new. Hence, the complainant.

The OPs 1 & 2 have contested the case by filing W.V. alleging that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious and liable to be dismissed. The specific case of the answering OPs is that the legal relationship between the OPs 1 & 2 and OPs 3 & 4 is of principal to principal basis. The OPs 3 & 4 are the authorized dealer and not an agent of the answering OPs being manufacturer of the cars. The answering OPs never allocate any car to any buyer. Any individual purchaser does not pay the cost of car individually to the OP-1 company, on the contrary every purchaser purchases car from the authorized dealer of Renault. The OPs  3 & 4 are the authorized  dealers of the answering OPs and OPs  3 & 4 raises bills against those bills answering OPs send cars to the OPs 3 & 4. The District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complaint has been filed for alleged fraud and criminal acts. The answering OPs being the manufacturer of the car are not liable for registration or insurance of the subject car. Hence, the answering OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.

            The OPs 3 & 4 have also contested the case by filing W.V. denying all the material allegations of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act, 1986 as the subject car was purchased for business purpose and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the instant complaint case. The complaint petition is frivolous, vexatious harassive and liable to be dismissed U/s 26 of the CP Act. The specific case of the answering OPs is that huge discount was granted to the complainant than the actual price prevents at the time of purchase and the subject car was manufactured in the year 2013. The subject car was displayed as demonstration purpose for test drive to the customers for adjudge the condition of the car. The complainant had been to the showroom of the OP-3 in the month of March, 2017 with the intention to purchase one Renault Model car and knowing about the discount the complainant himself choose the subject car. The price of the subject model car was Rs. 10,42,585/- including taxes and the complainant purchased the subject car at a consideration of Rs. 5,94,500/- inclusive  applicable tax after granted huge discount of Rs. 4,48,085/-. The discount was granted only on the ground that it was used for test drive purpose. The complainant was fully aware about the condition, year of manufacture and used for demonstration of the car for trial run. The complainant also paid temporary registration charges valid for one month from the date of purchase and also paid handling charges but he did not pay any charges towards permanent registration of the subject car. It was the responsibility of the complainant to get registered the car with motor vehicle authority of his hometown i.e. RTO, Malda. The car was delivered to the complainant when it was displayed about 28,000KM.

            Further case of the answering OPs is that due to some technical problem, “Vahan Portal” was not updated in M.V. website and did not find home location updating in the online internet system by the manufacturer as the same require more time for upgradation. The complainant did not spare such period for upgradation but moved before the Forum with frivolous allegations. The answering OPs vide letters dated 02.05.2018 and 12.05.2018 informed the complainant regarding his responsibility of permanent registration of the subject car in his name in home district at Malda. It was further proposed that if the complainant does not like to buy a new model car in exchange of subject car be purchased then the OP-3 will return subject car and also refund money paid by him as consideration price in exchange of the subject car. The complainant had filed the instant case with malafide intention in order to harass the OPs and to achieve his illegal game by abusing the process of law. Thus, the complaint petition is not tenable in law and liable to be dismissed with cost.

            On the pleading of the parties the following points are came up for determination:-

1) Is the complainant a consumer U/s 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the CP Act, 1986?

2) Are the OPs deficient in rendering services to the complainant alleged and are liable in any way?

3) Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point No. 1:

This point has not been pressed at the time of hearing of argument. We have perused the pleading of the parties, evidence garnered or record coupled with documents relied both parties. On perusal of Annexure-B of the consumer complaint, we find that the complainant had purchased the subject car at a price of Rs. 5,94,500/-  against invoice No. VMPL-1617-01983 dated 30.03.2017 from the OP-3 Vibrant Motors (P) Ltd. It further appears from the complaint petition that the complainant used the subject car for his necessity. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is a consumer U/s 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the CP Act, 1986 and also availed service from OP-3 upon payment of consideration. Thus, this point answered in the affirmative.

Points No. 2 & 3:

Both the points are taken up together for discussion.

We have perused the pleadings of the parties coupled with evidence and documents on record.

Undisputedly, the OP-3 sold one Renault brown colour car (Model Duster, Chassis No. MEEHSRA36D4024047 and Engine No. K9KG886D025525) to the complainant on 24.04.2017 at a price of Rs. 5,94,500/-. Annexure-B are the photocopies of tax invoice, sale invoice and sale certificate. On perusal of the annexure-B, we find that the details of the subject car mentioned therein. Sale certificate goes to show that the month and year of manufacture of the subject car is April, 2013. We have it from the temporary certificate of registration that the subject car was registered to the M.V. Department, Alipore, kolkta-700027 for a period of 30 days.

The grievance of the complainant is that soon after the purchase he applied for permanent registration of the subject car to the Registering Authority, Malda but home location of the subject car is not updated in the interne for which registration was denied by the Registering Authority, Malda. The matter was communicated to the OP-1 vide letter dated 07.06.2017 as well as e-mail. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs 1 & 2 being the manufacturer of the subject car and the  complainant has purchased the subject car from the OPs 3 & 4 who are the authorized dealer of the OPs 1 & 2. The relationship between OPs 1 & 2 and the OPs 3 & 4 is based principal to principal basis and there is no principal agent between the OPs  for which the OPs 1 & 2 are not liable for the acts of the OPs 3 & 4. The OPs 1 & 2 have no role to play about the sale of the subject car. Under Sections 40 & 43 of M.V. Act, 1988 clearly states that it is the duty of the owner of the car to register the car by Registering Authority i.e. R.T.A. Section 40 & 43 M.V. Act, 1988 is produced as follows-

“Section 40. Registration, where to be made.- subject to be provisions of Sections 42, 43 and 60 every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept”.

 “Section 43. Temporary registration.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40 the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other prescribed authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered in the prescribed manner and for the issued in the prescribed manner of a temporary certificate of registration and a temporary registration mark.

(2) xxxxxx

(3) xxxxxx”

On perusal of above Sections of the M.V. Act, 1988 it is evident that it is the duty of owner of the vehicle to register his vehicle by the Registering Authority. Therefore, the OPs 1 & 2 are under no obligation or duty under any law to compulsory to register the subject car of the complainant. As such the OPs 1 & 2 are not necessary parties to the instant complaint.

It is true that the ex-showroom price of the subject car was Rs. 10,53,011/-  and a huge discount was given to the complainant at the time of purchasing the car. The complainant purchased the subject car at a price of Rs. 5,94,500/- from the OPs 3 & 4 and the subject car was used for a demonstration for trial run. The discount of Rs. 4,48,085/- was granted to the complainant for such reason and the complainant was fully aware that the year of manufacturing of the car was 2013.Therefore, it is crystal clear that the complainant was fully aware about the condition, year of manufacturing and plyed about 28,000 KM during display of the subject car.  

It is true that the complainant paid comprehensive motor car insurance policy and temporary registration charges of the subject car. The temporary registration was for one month. It is the duty of the complainant to register the subject car with the M.V.A. of his home town at Malda. The OPs 3 & 4 admitted in their W.V. that due to some technical problem “Vahan Portal” was not updated in the Motor Vehicle’s website and did not find home location updating in the online internet system by the manufacturer as updating requires some more time and the complainant did not spare such period or upgradation but moved before the Forum with frivolous allegations. Considering the above aspect we direct the OPs 3 & 4 to update the home location of the subject car so that the complainant can get permanent certification of registration from Registering Authority, Malda.

The complainant has further alleged that the battery of the subject car was disturbing and the car was taken to authorized service centre who has opined that the battery is required to be replaced and no manufacturer’s warranty is available for the second hand vehicle though the vehicle was sold to the complainant as new and first hand. The battery warranty of the car was expired after 3 years as the subject car was manufactured in 2013. As such, no manufacturer’s warranty could be given and applicable. Therefore, the complainant has not able  to discharge his onus to prove that the subject car was sold to the complainant as new and first hand. It is not at all believable that a new and first hand car was sold to the complainant on 08.06.2017 at a price of Rs. 5,94,500/- instead of Rs. 10,42,585/-. Complainant never produced any expert opinion that the OPs 3 & 4 tempered the meter of the car.

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with evidence and materials on record, we are of the opinion that complainant is not entitled to get any compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,51,500/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively from the OPs. Even there is no document on record to show that subject car was sold to the complainant as new and first hand. As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief of compensation and litigation cost as prayed for.

Thus, both the points  answered in the negative.

In result, the case merit fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. Parties do bear their own costs.

The OPs 3 & 4 are directed to update home location of the subject car online on the Motor Vehicle’s website within 30 days from the date of this order.