CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.333/2011
SHRI ANHINAV BHUSHAN,
S/O SH. VIDHU BHUSHAN,
R/O H.NO. 2ND FLOOR, 2823,
C-1, SUSHANT LOK-1,
GURGAON, HARYANA-122002
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD., 1ST FLOOR,
THE GREAT EASTERN CENTRE, 70,
NEHRU PLACE, BEHIND IFCI TOWER,
NEW DELHI-110019 - ADARSH YAMAHA, 77-78A,
SRI AUROBINDO MARG, ADHCHINI,
NEW DELHI-110017
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:04.02.2019
O R D E R
H.C SURI - Member
This complainant under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Abhinav Bhushan, the complainant herein against Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. OP-1 and Adarsh Yamaha OP-2.
The complainant has submitted that he had purchased Yamaha FZS Motorcycle bearing chassis no. 2106028154 and Engine No. ME121006YA2028461 from OP-2 on 10.01.2011 after completing all the necessary formalities such as paying Rs. 73,851/- which included insurance policy amount also and submitting all the relevant documents mentioned in Annexure-C, as desired by Mr. Arshad Salesman of OP-2 who assured that the motorcycle would be got registered with the RTO concerned. It is submitted that the he was given delivery of the motorcycle on 10.01.2011 after submitting all the documents. The Complainant further submitted that after one month of purchase, the Complainant received a call from Yamaha asking him some more documents like updated passbook copy and BSNL bill which were submitted to them immediately. Again after a few days he received another call asking him to take the motorcycle to regional transport office for inspection which the complainant complied with and got the verification done. It is submitted that in spite of completing all the formalities the OPs have given only verbal assurances and the vehicle has not been registered.
The complainant further submits that when vehicle met with an accident on 25.03.2011, and he took his motorcycle Yamaha for claim, he was informed that in the absence of motorcycle papers i.e., registration document, the claim cannot be processed. The Complainant had no choice but to leave the motorcycle at Yamaha, Adhchini and started calling the OPs but without any success. Consequently, this complaint was filed. The matter was referred to mediation also but none appeared for the OPs to resolve the issue which shows the negligent attitude of the OPs and deficiency of service on their part. The complainant has placed on record the e-mails sent by him to the OPs but no response was received from the OPs. The complainant submits that the action and inaction on the part of the OPs clearly indicate that there was a gross deficiency of service on their part and they acted totally contrary to their commitment and assurances given to the Complainant. The Complainant was never informed about the status of the registration process and he had no idea about the status of process initiated by the OPs. The Complainant was under bonafide belief that the Motorcycle would be got registered soon because he had given all the requisite documents demanded by the OPs. It is submitted that the OPs are liable to Rs.73,851 deposited by him alongwith the compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- and he has made the prayer that this amount might be ordered to be paid to the Complainant by the OPs.
On being served with the Notice of this Forum, OP-1 instead of filing its written statement, filed an application under Section 26 of the Act for deletion of the name of OP-1. It was submitted in the said application that the complaint is false and has been made to injure the interest and reputation of OPs. It is further submitted that OP-1 is the manufacturer of premium quality motorcycle sold in the country under the name of Yamaha and for the purpose of its business, the OP-1 has appointed and authorised a number of dealers throughout the country. It is submitted that OP-2 is one of the dealers of OP-1 and that the agreement between OP-1 and OP-2 stipulates the relationship between the two on principal to principal basis. In other words, the OP-1 cannot be burderned with or held responsible for the acts of the dealers. In this case, according to OP-1, the motorcycle was delivered to the Complainant after completing the process to entire satisfaction of the Complainant in perfect working condition and there was no manufacturing defect as such. OP-1 had provided a warranty for a period of two years or 30,000 kms of its operation whichever is earlier from the date of sale to the original purchaser only. It is submitted that the warranty extended only to the extent of certain parts that are found to have manufacturing defect and not to the complete motorcycle. OP-1 further undertook to repair and replace the parts that are found to have any manufacturing defect within the period of warranty. It is further submitted that the Complainant has not stated that there was any claim against OP-1. The Complainant is stated to have sent e-mails to the OP-1 requesting them to direct OP-2 to provide the Complainant the documents of the Complainant’s motorcycle. The OP-1 further submits that it is not a case of manufacturing defect in the motorcycle but it relates to registration certificate and insurance of the vehicle which is not in the domain of OP-1, registration of the motorcycle was to be done by RTO and the insurance policy was to be obtained by the consumer himself and OP-1 is not responsible for the same. OP-1 submits that since there was no cause of action against OP-1, OP-1 is not a necessary party and, therefore, the name of OP-1 might be deleted from the array of parties. The Complainant, however, in his reply to the application denied all the everments of the application and pleaded that OP-1 is very much essential party in the matter of OP-1, and liable for all the acts of OP-2 because the Complainant had purchased the motorcycle under the brand impression of OP-1 and not OP-2 and had communicated vide various e-mails with OP-1 and OP-1 cannot thus be relieved from its responsibility.
AR for OP-2 appeared. Copy of the complaint was supplied to him and he sought time to file reply but despite given number of opportunities, reply was not filed. Ultimately, OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte and like OP1, did not file any reply or evidence, in their support nor did they file any written arguments in support of their case. In view of the aforesaid facts it is clear that the Complainant has been wronged as OP-2 have not provided him the service he deserved to have from OP-1 particularly because he had deposited all the charges alongwith the price of the vehicle which included insurance premium as well as the requisite/desired documents. His emails were received but not replied to, which shows deficiency in service.
This forum dismissed the application of OP1, and held that it is proper and necessary party.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
Complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that he had paid a sum of Rs. 73,851/- towards the price of motorcycle which included the amount of insurance policy and it was assured to him that OP-2 will get the motorcycle registered with R.T.O concerned. He further stated in his complaint that after one month of purchase, the Complainant received a call from Yamaha asking him some more documents like updated passbook copy and BSNL bill which were submitted to them immediately. Again after a few days he received another call asking him to take the motorcycle to regional transport office for inspection which the complainant complied with and got the verification done. It is submitted that in spite of completing all the formalities the OPs have given only verbal assurances and the vehicle has not been registered. This statement of the Complainant remains unchallenged. Complainant has sent e-mail to OP regarding not providing the registration certificate and his inability to lodge a claim in the absence of registration certificate but that e-mail was not responded, the e-mail was again sent but nothing was done. The motorcycle of the Complainant met with an accident, he could not have filed the claim in the absence of registration certificate. It was the duty of the OP-2 to provide the registration certificate but that was not done, OP-2 has taken the necessary charges for that. The motorcycle is lying with OP-2 since the day of accident and that is now almost for the last eight years.
It is a clear cut case of deficiency of service on the part of OP-2, admittedly there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the charges were taken by OP-2 and it was OP-2 who was to provide the registration certificate. So, there was deficiency of service on the part of OP-2. OP-2 is directed to refund the sum of Rs. 73,851/- to Complainant with 9 % interest from 01.09.2011. OP-2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The Complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C SURI ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
