Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Debraj Das
For OP/OPs :Subinay Ghosh
Date of filing of the case :05.07.2021
Date of Disposal of the case :29.02.2024
Final Order / Judgment dtd.29.02.2024
The concise fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant Suman Sk @ Shaikh purchased one TVS Jupitar Grand
(2)
CC/53/2021
Bike on 29.12.2019 from the OP proprietor , authorised dealer of TVS Motors Speed Wheel for Rs.87,000/- by paying Rs.66,304/- and the balance amount was for Registration and Tax plus Insurance. But the OPs did not supply the Registration Certificate , Tax Receipt and other documents after taking all fees. Complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.87,000/-. The complainant, thereafter, repeatedly requested for supplying those documents but lastly on 25.01.2020 the insurance certificate was given but the registration certificate has not been supplied. The said act of the OPs tantamounts deficiency in service. Presently, Rahul TVS the OP No.3 is the authorised dealer of TVS Motors, who is OP NO.3. The OP No.3 told that presently the registration procedure of BS-4 has been closed by the Government. So, they should also be liable for such unfair trade practice. Subsequently, the complainant sent a legal notice to the OP NO.1 through his advocate on 15.01.2024 but they did not respond properly. The vehicle was purchased on 29.12.2019 and Lock Down was declared from 23.03.2020. The registration certificate should be issued within one and half month but the OP NO.1 neglected and as such they cannot avoid their liability. OP No.3 is the manufacturing company and they cannot avoid their liability . The complainant ,therefore, prayed for an award to hand over the original registration certificate, lifetime road tax or in the alternative to exchange the said motor cycle with BS-6 model or refund the money taken by all the OPs, Rs.1,00,000/- for compensation for harassment and mental pain and agony and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP No.1&2 both the contested the case by filing W/V wherein they denied the major allegations. The OPs challenged the case as not maintainable on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The positive defence case of the complainant is that the OP No.1 is authorised dealer of TVS Motors wherefrom the complainant purchased the scooter and subsequently did not visit to the OP No.1. After several intimations being given to the complainant by the OP No.1 for submitting necessary documents, he submitted the same. After some days of purchasing the Scooter/bike the Govt. of India banned the said model BS-4 bike and OP No.1 was unable to register the bike . The OP No.1 has no personal latches. The OP No.1 tried his level best but failed to do so. The present case is filed to harass the OP NO.1. The OP No.1 also filed one WPA No.16836 to the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta. The order of the Hon’ble Court has been communicated to the Principal Secretary Transport Department
(3)
CC/53/2021
Government of India of West Bengal which is sub-judice. The Transport Department directed the complainant to attend the hearing along with relevant documents. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.
The OP NO.2 also denied all the major allegations in their W/V. The positive defence case of OP No.2 is that the OP No.2 runs its business in the name of “bi wheeler” having registered showroom at Krishnagar. It is fact that the complainant purchased the Scooter from speed wheel OP No.1 which is a dealer of TVS Motors. The complainant never purchased any Scooty /bike from OP No.2. There is no seller and customer relation between the complainant and OP No.2. The complainant also never visited the office of OP No.2. The OP No.2 claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The conflicting pleadings all the parties demand in ascertainment of the following points for proper adjudication of this case.
Points for Determination
Point No.1.
Whether the present case is maintainable in law and fact of the case.
Point No.2.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Point No.3.
To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1.
Both the OP No.1 & 2 challenged the case as not maintainable on the ground that it is barred by limitation and in its present form and prayer.
After perusing the pleadings of the complainant it transpires that the cause of action for the present case claimed to have arisen on 02.02.2021 being the date of getting the reply to legal notice by the OP No.1. The OPs could not satisfy any ground against the said averment of para-5 of the complaint.
(4)
CC/53/2021
Thus having perused the pleadings of the parties and the materials in the case record the Commission is of the view that the present case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point No.1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2&3.
Both the points are taken up together since these are closely interlinked with each other. Complainant in order to substantiate the case proved the following documents.
The Money receipt dated 17.02.2020 on behalf of the bi-wheelers in the name of Speed Wheel for Rs.2,00,000/- shows that payment was made Rs.2,00,000/-. Another money receipt dated 18.03.2020 issued by Speed Wheel shows that total Rs.10,00,000/- was paid. The copy of insurance policy having insurance policy no.D012188411/25012020 dated 25.01.2020 also filed by Go Digit General Insurance Limit.
It is the admitted fact that the complainant purchased the TVS Jupitar Grand Disc 110 CC on 29.12.2019. The OPs have contended that after several intimations and after long time the complainant has filed the documents . But the defence plea is that the Government announced ban of specific generation that BS-IV and the OP No.1 was unable registered the bike .
It is the settled principle of law that admitted facts need not be proved. The OPs have admitted that registration was not done, only an explanation given that the Government of India had a ban on BS-IV. So, the complainant has been deprived of.
However, the complainant alleged that the OPs dragged the matter for three months but registration of a vehicle could be done within one to half month.
The case record shows that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 29.12.2019 and the Lock Down was declared on 23.03.2020. It means that about three months time was available to the OPs for registration of the said vehicle.
Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1&2 argued that the complainant failed to produce any document to establish that registration is usually completed within one and half month .
(5)
CC/53/2021
Ld. Advocate for the complainant on the contrary argued that OP No.1 has failed to produce any documents to show as to how long time should be taken for registration of a vehicle.
In fact the since OPs challenged that registration cannot be done within last period, so it is the obligation of the OPs to be produced the rules regarding registration of a vehicle and its time limit. However, it is found condition tendency of the case the vehicle has been registered.
The complainant further argued that as per the provisions of M.V Act registration should be done within one month . the vehicle was purchased on 29.12.2019 . So, the OPs had got enough time for registration of the vehicle.
He further argued that it is the duty of the dealer to complete the registration of a newly purchased vehicle.
Thus the OPs could not give sufficient explanation regarding delay for registration within three months. However, it is the defence plea that due to Covid period and announcement of Lock Down by the Government some normal activities were postponed for service period over which the parties had no control.
From the case record it transpires that the OPs have filed one registration certificate in the name of the complainant Suman Sk for the said vehicle being chassis no.MD626FG47K1K02529 on 15.08.2023.
The further document also shows that WPA no.16836 has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta and subsequently, it was moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Finally the registration was done on the direction of the Transport Department Government of West Bengal prior to 31.03.2020. The OP No.1 paid the registration fees. So, relief claimed for complainant partly seems to have been granted.
The case record further shows that complainant cross-examined the OPs.
The OPs took the defence plea that the complainant did not submit the documents within the reasonable time. In this regard the complainant put specific question to the OP No.1. As per question no.4 it was asked as to whether the OP NO.1 informed the complainant about non-submitting of documents on 22.02.2020 when the complainant took his free service . The OP NO.1 answered yes but from the answer no.5 it transpires that OPs
(6)
CC/53/2021
admitted that after receiving all the documents for registration process from the complainant the documents were handed over to the main dealer of the TVS Motors company for this district.
It means that as per answer no.5 given by OP No.1 in reply to interrogatories , the complainant submitted all documents to the OPs. Therefore, defence plea that the complainant did not submit the documents does not hold good and as such it is not acceptable . Therefore, the OPs had latches on their part in registration of the vehicle within reasonable time.
OP No.2 answered against question no.4 of interrogatories by the complainant that in the third week of March, 2020 he received the documents for registration process from the OP No.1. It means that the OP No.1 has caused delay in sending the documents to OP No.2.
The complainant categorically answered against the interrogatory filed by OP NO.1. The complainant stated in answer that government announced ban on BS-IV bike sale or registration and it was held after three months from the date of his purchase. So, it is crystal clear that the OPs had got three months time for registration of the said vehicle.
OP No.2 tried to deny the relationship of seller and customer between the complainant and OP NO.2 in question no.7. The complainant in answer stated that the OP No.1 stated in their legal notice that their sub-dealer is OP No.2 and the bike was purchased from sub-dealer of OP No.2.
Thus having perused all the documents and the reply to interrogatories it is established that there is specific relation of seller and customer between the complainant and the OPs. So, the OP NO.2 cannot avoid their responsibility in regard to the claim of the complainant . The liability of all the OPs are joined and several.
Ld. Defence Counsel of OP NO.1&2 argued that they did not take the fees for insurance of the vehicle. The vehicle was released on the basis of road challan .
The document clearly shows that the dealer cannot escape from the liability for registration. Sub-dealer acts as an agent of the dealer. The dealer has to apply immediately for registration of the vehicle
(7)
CC/53/2021
after sale of the same. Having perused all the documents and the evidence in the case record , it is established that the OPs did not act diligently for registration of the vehicle which amounts to unfair trade practice which should be compensated in terms of money .
In the back drop aforesaid discussion and observation made hereinabove the Commission is of the view that the complainant subsequently proved the case against the OPs .
Accordingly, point no.2&3 are answered in affirmative in favour of the complainant. However, in view of the fact that the registration certificate has been issued , except prayer no.1, other relief should be granted .
In the result the complaint case succeeds on contest with cost.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the complaint case no.CC/53/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1,2 & 4 and ex-parte against OP No.3 with cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand). The complainant Suman Sk @ Shaikh do get an award for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) for unfair trade practice and mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost. The OP N.1,2&3 are directed to pay Rs.35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the award proportionately failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @8% p.a from the date of passing the final order till the date of its realisation. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to implement the award.
(8)
CC/53/2021
All Interim Applications (I.A) stand disposed of accordingly.
D.A to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,) ................ ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
