Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/153/2013

A.Ori - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Royal Enfield , Brand Store - Opp.Party(s)

D.Babu and K S Elangovan

01 Aug 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 03.05.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 01.08.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.153/2013

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 01^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019

                                 

A. Ori,

S/o. Mr. M. Arumugam,

Door No.38/16, Devu Naidu Street,

West Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.                                                        .. Complainant.                                

 

 

                                                                                           ..Versus..

 

1. M/s. The Royal Enfield,

Brand Store – Chennai, Devi Kripa,

Old No.3, New No.9, Besant Avenue,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

M/s. The Royal Enfield,

Brand Store, Devi Kripa,

Old No.3, New No.9, Besant Avenue,

Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.

 

3. The Assistant Registration Authority,

Chennai West,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. D. Babu & another

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. K.S. Jeyaganeshan &   

                                                                 another

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party        : M/s. Ponram Rajaa

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 to permit the complainant to resort to Sections 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act in case of default of compliance to the order likely to be passed, to get a fresh form of certificate registration from the 3^rd opposite party showing in column No.11 the makers class “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC” and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, inconveniences, great loss and hardship along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he has purchased a two wheeler i.e. “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC” on 03.11.2012 from the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party is a dealer, while the 1^st opposite party is a manufacturer.   The 2^nd opposite party received the entire sale price along with the charges for registration of vehicle and insurance policy.  The 2^nd opposite party issued insurance policy form Bajaj Alliance Insurance with all details of the vehicle including Engine No.U5S5FODA034716, Chassis No.ME3U5SFODA034716 etc. The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party who received the sale consideration and charges towards registration and insurance it is the bounden duty of the 2^nd opposite party to register the vehicle with R.T.O.  Accordingly, the vehicle was duly registered with R.T.O., Chennai West.  In Registration Certificate of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN09 BS 0303, in column No.11, the Maker’s Class is “Thunderbird 500 CC” instead of “CLASSIC 500 UCB” mentioned as wrongly.  The said error in the R.C. Book is against the correct manufacturing details of the vehicle which caused great inconvenience which is against the insurance policy also which cannot be entertained in any claim with regard to the risk under the policy.  Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties 1 to 3 has not come forward to rectify the mistake which caused great mental agony which leads to deficiency in service.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that the complainant has booked a “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC” vehicle and did not make full payment on the same date i.e. on 03.11.2012.  He paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- alone.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that they have registered the vehicle with the 3^rd opposite party.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that they had given the correct particulars and the form  was correctly filled but it was registered by the 3^rd opposite party as Classic 500 UCB.   The 3^rd opposite party has registered the vehicle of the compliant as mentioned because the vehicle which was booked by the complainant  was a new version and the name of the latest version was to be updated.    Since the features as registered and the booked one are one and the same, the 3^rd opposite party has registered as Classic 500 UCB and was informed to the complainant.   Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.   The opposite parties met the complainant in person for the return of earlier R.C. book and it was informed to the complainant that only after the old R.C. book is returned to the 3^rd opposite party the fresh RC book can be given.  But the complainant did not accept the requests and wanted it to be done otherwise.  Hence, because of the adamant act of the complainant the corrected RC book was not issued.   All the efforts made by the opposite parties 1 & 2 remained futile.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 had replied for the complainant’s legal notice and had tried for a settlement but the complainant was not ready.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The 3^rd opposite party submits that the compliant has to be dismissed on the sole ground that there is no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party.   The 3^rd opposite party is discharging his duties as Transport Officer as provided in the statute only and has done all his duties without any default or deficiency.    The 3^rd opposite party submits that the compliant has to be dismissed against the 3^rd opposite party on the ground that there is no prayer for the payment of compensation against the 3^rd opposite party in the complaint except the prayer No.12(a) as directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to get a fresh form of certificate of registration from the 3^rd opposite party showing in column No.11 the makers class “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC”, since the 3^rd opposite party is not a necessary party.  The 3^rd opposite party states that the complainant himself has admitted in paragraph No.7 of the complaint that the form of certificate issued by the 3^rd opposite party in column No. bears only “Classic 500 UCB” which clearly shows the negligence and irresponsibility of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in giving the full particulars and details of the vehicle to the 3^rd opposite party at the time of registration and because of the negligence and irresponsibility of the opposite parties 1 & 2, the error occurred in the Registration Certificate.  Therefore, there is not deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  In spite of sufficient time is given, the 3^rd opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit even after given sufficient time and hence, it is concluded as “No Proof Affidavit” on the side of the 3^rd opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a fresh Registration Certificate showing column No.11 as “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC” as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for damages, mental agony, deficiency in service with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The 3^rd opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  The complainant filed his written argument.  Heard the complainant and opposite parties’ 1 & 2 Counsel also. Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended he purchased a two wheeler Motor Cycle i.e. “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC” on 03.11.2012 from the opposite parties 1 & 2.  Ex.A1 is the copy of Order Booking Form.  Ex.A2 is the copy of invoice dated:16.01.2013 for a sum of Rs.1,60,508/- in which, thunder “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC” is clearly mentioned and thereby, the complainant has booked “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC” vehicle.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party is a dealer, while the 1^st opposite party is a manufacturer.   The 2^nd opposite party received the entire sale price along with the charges for registration of vehicle and insurance policy.  The 2^nd opposite party issued insurance policy form Bajaj Alliance Insurance with all details of the vehicle including Engine No.U5S5FODA034716, Chassis No.ME3U5SFODA034716 etc.   Ex.A3 is the copy of Certificate of Insurance cum Policy schedule issued by the Bajaj Alliance Company.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party who received the sale consideration and charges towards registration and insurance; hence, it is the bounden duty of the 2^nd opposite party to register the vehicle with R.T.O.  Accordingly, the vehicle was duly registered with R.T.O., Chennai West.  Ex.A4 is the copy of Registration Certificate of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN09 BS 0303.  But in column No.11, the Maker’s Class is “Thunderbird 500 CC” instead of “CLASSIC 500 UCB” mentioned as wrongly.  The said error in the R.C. Book is against the correct manufacturing details of the vehicle which caused great inconvenience which is against the insurance policy also which cannot be entertained in any claim with regard to the risk under the policy.  Even after repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties 1 to 3 has not come forward to rectify the mistake which caused great mental agony which leads to deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this case.

7.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 would contend that the complainant has booked a “THUNDERBIRD 500 CC” vehicle and did not make full payment on the same date i.e. on 03.11.2012.  He paid an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- alone.  But the opposite parties has not filed any document to prove the said contentions. On the other hand, the opposite parties delivered the vehicle after full payment.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that they have registered the vehicle with the 3^rd opposite party with correct particulars.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A8, Form 20, the ‘Maker’s Class’ is not mentioned correctly proves the deficiency in service.  The 3^rd opposite party filed written version but has not come forward to file proof affidavit to prove the contention raised in the written version.   It is contented in the written version of the 3^rd opposite party that the negligence of the opposite parties 1 & 2 caused the mistake and the opposite parties 1 & 2 alone are responsible for the mistake. The 3^rd opposite party is the only registering authority have nothing to do with this.  But the 3^rd opposite party shall verify and register the vehicle proves the negligence on the part of the 3^rd opposite party also. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally shall take suitable action to correct the mistake and issue a fresh Registration Certificate with a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to take suitable action to correct the mistake and issue a fresh Registration Certificate and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 01^st day of August 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	03.11.2012	Copy of Order Booking Form
Ex.A2	16.01.2013	Copy of the vehicle Sale Invoice
Ex.A3	23.01.2013	Copy of the insurance issued by the Bajaj Alliance Company
Ex.A4		Copy R.C. Book issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A5	05.03.2013	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 & 2
Ex.A6	08.03.2013	Copy of acknowledgment from the 1st opposite party for the receipt of legal notice of the complainant
Ex.A7		Copy of acknowledgment from the 3rd opposite party for the receipt of legal notice of the complainant
Ex.A8(S)		Copy of Form 20

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

3^RD OPPOSITE PARTY:- ‘No Proof Affidavit’

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT