Complaint filed on: 01-09-2016 Disposed on: 30-08-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.115/2016
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
T.K.Devaraju,
S/o. Kumbi Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at Thimanayakanahalli
Village, Kolala (P) and Hobli,
Koratagere taluk
(By Advocate Sri.Kumar.S.C)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
1.Proprietor,
Shiva Shakthi motors,
Kolala Hobli, Kolala post,
Kortagere taluk, Tumakuru
District
2.Proprietor,
Navayug Motors (SRS Motors)
TVS Motor Company Ltd.
SVT Complex, Agalakuppe road,
Dobaset-11
3.Managing Director,
Nanda Motor and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd, Narasapura Factory, Plot No.109, Sector 109, KIADB, Narasapura Industrial Area,
Karinayakanahalli, Malur taluk, Kolar District, Karnataka
- Managing Director, Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter Indian over Ltd. Commercial Complex, Sector 4950 Golf Course Extension Road, Guragaon, State of Hariyana, Charisma (122018) India
(OP No.1 and 2 by Advocate Sri.S.Shankar)
(OP No.3 and 4- Exparte)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP Nos.1 to 4, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OPs to replace the complainant’s vehicle with the new original value of the same model and get the registration and insurance of the new vehicle of free of costs and to award the compensation of Rs.50,000=00 for the loss, mental tension and depression committed by the OP No.1 and 2 and grant such other relief as deemed fit, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant had purchased two wheelers vehicle bearing model Honda Activa 3G of Honda Company bearing Engine No.4JF 506MFT004012 and Key No.P-243 from the 1st OP on 15-1-2016. At the time of purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant had hypothecated the above said vehicle to the Kavery Grameena Bank at Kolala, Koratagere taluk, Tumakuru district.
The complainant further submitted that, at the time of delivery of the said vehicle, the 1st OP had issued the original delivery note bearing No.669 with showroom seal and signature of the 1st OP. After days, i.e. on 1-2-2016, the 1st OP showroom workers had intimated the complainant through telephone asking him to bring the vehicle for registration of the insurance.
The complainant further submitted that, on the advice of the 1st OP, the complainant had brought the said vehicle to the showroom of the 1st OP and then handed over all the original documents including the original delivery note bearing No.669 to the 1st OP showroom.
The complainant further submitted that, when the complainant went to the 1st OP showroom, the 1st OP told that as the insurance agents were not available at the showroom and the 1st OP advised the complainant to bring the vehicle to the 2nd OP showroom which is running as Navayug Motors (SRS Motors) at Dobbospet. On their suggestion, the complainant had brought the vehicle to the 2nd OP showroom at Dobbospet. On the advice of the OP No.1 and 2, the complainant had handed over the said vehicle to them to take the vehicle outside for registration of the insurance of the vehicle as the insurance agents were not available at the 2nd OP showroom. At the time of taking the vehicle, the complainant had refused for their request and also suggested that, he will accompany with them for registration of the insurance. But, inspite of the complainant request, the OPs had refused to accompany the complainant along with the OPs, for the reasons best known to the OPs. Later, the OPs had convinced the complainant and believing them in good faith, the complainant had handed over his vehicle along with the original delivery note to the OPs on their advice and the OPs had taken the vehicle along with another person on the same day. The complainant was waiting for them to return the 2nd OP showroom.
The complainant further submitted that, after lapse of 3 to 4 hours, the agents had returned to the showroom of the 2nd OP with the complainant’s vehicle and handed over the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant alleged that, as handed over the vehicle by the OPs, which was not belongs to the complainant, which was used for several months which is also white in colour of the same model, but different engine No.JF 50ET 300 8649 and Chassis No.ME4JF 505aGYoo8324 Activa and the same was observed by the complainant after he had used the vehicle after 15 days. When the complainant had handed over the said vehicle to the showroom of the OP No.1 and 2 and the original delivery note which was given by the 2nd OP showroom stating that, the same was replaced by an another one, the OP No.1 and 2 had replied to the complainant by creating a concocted story the he had lost the vehicle along with original delivery note when they had taken the vehicle outside for registration of the insurance from the 2nd OP showroom.
The complainant further submitted that, the 1st OP showroom had issued the duplicate delivery note on the same day dated 10-2-2016 having showroom seal along with letter which was issued by the 2nd OP dated 9-2-2016 by stating that, the vehicle was lost from the Navayugh Motors (SRS) Motors) Dobbospet and also issued a gate pass to the complainant dated 1-2-2016, when the complainant had insisted for issuing a gate pass of the different vehicle in spite of the opposition by the OPs on the assurance that they will rectified the mistake committed by them. The OPs had taken some time and they handed over the different vehicle for the time being by stating some reasons in which the engine and chassis number was different. Hence, the OP No.1 and 2 have committed the fraud and negligence.
The complainant further submitted that, the above said facts, it is crystal clear that, without an iota of doubt establishes that, they had intentionally defraud the complainant with a malafide intention and cheated by creating the concocted story by colluding with the owners and the agents of the OP No.1 and 2 for a wrong full gain.
The complainant further submitted that, he is poor rustic villager and innocent by taking this undue advantage, the OP No.1 and 2 had cheated the complainant. The complainant had secured the amount for the vehicle by his day to day earnings having a dream to purchase his own vehicle. Due to the fraud created by the OP No.1 and 2, the complainant is fully mentally depressed and he is in mental shock for which the OP no.1 and 2 are completely liable. Hence, the complainant had issued a legal notice to the OP No.1 and 2 on 22-4-2016 calling upon them to replace the vehicle for the fraud committed by the OP No.1 and 2 agents and the said legal notice was served on them, but the OP No.1 and 2 have not replied to the said legal notice. Hence, the complainant has come up with the present complaint.
3. In response to the Forum notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed common objection. The OP No.3 and 4 have not appeared before the forum and they have called out absent and they have been placed exparte.
4. In the objection, the OP No.1 and 2 contended that, the averments made in the complaint are all concocted and created story of the complainant as false and denied.
The OP No.1 and 2 further respectfully submitted, the OPs are the authorized dealers of the two wheeler vehicle of Honda Company manufactured by the 4th OP. The OP No.1 and 2 are the dealers of the said vehicle and not manufactures. As per the order of the customer/complainant, the OPs booking the vehicle before the OP No.4 and 5 and the same was delivered to the customer/complainant by the OP No.1 and 2.
The OP No.1 and 2 further submitted that, the complainant had approached the 1st OP for purchase of the Honda Activa-3G, white colour vehicle. As per retail invoice sale certificate, temporary certificate of registration form (RTO), insurance cop, delivery note and gate pass and other necessary documents sent by the 1st OP to the Manager of the Kavery Kalpatharu Bank, Kolala. The vehicle purchased by the complainant has been hypothecated to the above said bank. As per gate pass dated 1-2-2016 bearing no.1140, the said vehicle had received by the complainant and hypothecated vehicle bearing Engine N o.JF50ET3008649 and Chassis No.ME4JF504AGT008324 white (Pearl white) which is accepted and received by the complainant on that day, till today, the said vehicle is in the custody of the complainant and running by the complainant himself.
The OP No.1 and 2 further submitted that, after delivery of the vehicle, the complainant has not making any service as per company instructions. The OPs have paid the insurance amount to the United India Insurance Company Ltd for the said hypothecated vehicle for Rs.1,424=00 and further the complainant has not making permanent registration as per law for the said vehicle.
The OP No.1 and 2 further submitted that, the 1st OP had paid the charges for Registration to the RTO office for Rs.6,949=00 for permanent registration of the said vehicle, but till today, the complainant has not registered the said vehicle as per law.
The OP No.1 and 2 further submitted that, the complainant in this case by creating false story against the OPs and by giving wrong chassis and engine number, he had filed the complaint with a view to defraud and cheat these OPs. The complaint is not maintainable in law. The OPs further submitted that, the complainant himself disobey the terms and conditions of the said transaction, and he has failed to making regular services and permanent registration of the vehicle and whether the complainant had paid regular instalments to the bank has to be shown by himself. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the OPs have prayed to dismiss the complaint exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
5. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and OP No.1 have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Both parties have filed their written arguments. The complainant has produced documents which were marked as Ex-C1 to C8 and the OPs have produced 11 documents. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents and then posted the cases for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. The complainant has alleged that, the agent of the OP No.1 and 2 have taken the complainant’s Honda Active 3G vehicle bearing Engine No.JF50Et4004342, Chassis No.ME 41F 506MFT004012 and Key No.P-243 for insurance in the 2nd OP showroom. The OP No.1 and 2 instead of returning the above said vehicle, they have return the some other vehicle bearing engine No.JF50ET3008649 and chassis No.ME4JF50GT008324 by issuing a gate pass to the complainant. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that, the vehicle bearing Engine No.JF50Et4004342, Chassis No. ME 41F 506MFT004012 belongs to the complainant. Hence we cannot believe the contention of the complainant.
8. Further, the OP No.1 and 2 submitted that, the complainant had purchased Honda Activa-3G white, Engine No.FJ 50ET3008649 and Chassis No.4F 50 AGT 008324 and not the vehicle bearing Engine No.JP50ET4004342 and chassis No.ME4JF/506/MFT004012 which was alleged by the complainant. The OP No.1 and 2 further submitted that, the above said vehicle bearing Engine No.FJ 50ET3008649 and Chassis No.4F 50 AGT 008324 had hypothecated the said vehicle to the Kavery Grameena Bank, Kolala. At the time of hypothecation of the vehicle, the OPs have sent the retail invoice sale certificate, temporary certificate of registration form, insurance copy, delivery note, gate pass vehicle insurance and other necessary documents to the Kavery Kalpatharu Bank, Kolala. To substantiate the above said facts, the OPs have produced copy of Retail invoice, temporary certificate of registration, Form 21 and certificate of insurance. To disbelieve this evidence of the Ops, there is no rebuttal evidence, therefore it is proper to accept the contention of the Ops. Hence, we come to conclusion that, the complainant has purchased the vehicle bearing engine No.JF50ET3008649 and chassis No.ME4JF50GT008324 from the OP No.1.
9. On making careful scrutiny of the case of complainant on the background of oral and documentary evidence of both parties, it is no doubt true that, the complainant has miserably failed to establish with clear cogent and consistent material evidence that, he has purchased Honda Active 3G vehicle bearing Engine No.JF50Et4004342, Chassis No.ME 41F 506MFT004012 from the OPs. Hence, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on their part. As such, we hold that, the material evidence of the OPs placed before the forum is more believable and acted upon than the material evidence of the complainant, so due to paucity of material evidence, we are inclined come to straight conclusion that, the complainant has utterly failed to prove this point satisfactorily. Accordingly, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Forum on this, the 30th day of August 2017)
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
