Date of filing:- 04/01/2021.
Date of Order:-26/02/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 04 of 2021.
Sri Sudeep Banchor, aged about 35 (thirty five) years, son of late Ratia Banchor, resident of Bargarh, Ward No.1(one), Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... .... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
- Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited At-3rd floor of Bajaji Business Center Budharaja, Sambalpur, Pin-768004.
- Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, At- Bargarh Super Market, Room No. 204, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh, Pin-768028.
- Branch Manager, Odyssey Motors Pvt. Ltd., Bargarh at- N.H.6, near Jeera Bridge, Bargarh, Pin-768028.
- Regional Transport Authority Bargarh, At/Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri G.Mehera, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 :- Sri A.K.Sahoo, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party No.3 :- Ex-parte.
For the Opposite Party No.4 :- Addl Govt. Pleader, Bargarh.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.26/02/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant for his livelihood has purchased a commercial vehicle i.e. Maruti Super Carry STD/White with affixing HSRP, being financed by Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and Opposite Party No.1(one) is the dealer of the aforesaid vehicle. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) being approached by the Complainant approved the proposal of the Complainant on 22-09-2020 and accordingly the Complainant paid down payment of Rs. 1,30,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty thousand)only to the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties financed a price of Rs. 3,60,000/-(Rupees three lakh sixty thousand)only which is to be paid within 4(four) years by paying a monthly installment of Rs10,040/-(Rupees ten thousand forty)only when the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties told to the Complainant to move the vehicle on road without any interruption but after two days told the Complainant not to ply vehicle on road whenever the Regd No. is relieved from the R.T.O. Bargarh, subsequently on dt. 07-10-2020, the Complainant was given the Regd. No. of the vehicle OD-17-U-9484 and told that the Opposite Parties trade i.e. Finance certificate have expired and told to ply the vehicle after some time. The Complainant there after contacted the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties deferred the matter and at last on dt. 27-11-2020 the Opposite Party No.3(three) issued a letter to the Complainant. That the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant without getting approved from the R.T.O., Bargarh due to invalid trade certificate of the financer and the registration is still pending before R.T.O., Bargarh.
Hence, for the act of the Opposite Parties the Complainant is not able to ply the vehicle on the road, filed the complaint before this Commission praying for Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only which the complainant earn from the vehicle on each month from the date of purchase, so also a direction given to the Opposite Parties not to collect the installments price whenever the Complainant able to run vehicle on road and also liable to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as mental agony and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as litigation expenses.
2) The case of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are that the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) have filed its version and submitted that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased and being used for the commercial purpose and not for earning of the livelihood of the Complainant. The Complainant has approached the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) for availing loan to purchase a commercial vehicle super carry and sought loan sanction of Rs.3,63,360/-(Rupees three lakh sixty three thousand three hundred sixty)only and vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement was executed vide contract No. ORSMBGSVO0549 Dt. 22-09-2020 and the said loan was disbursed. Complainant had agreed to repay the loan agreement value of Rs. 4,70,915/-(Rupees four lakh seventy thousand nine hundred fifteen)only in the Ist of English Calender month, tenure of 48(forty eight) months with interest. The Complainant after funding has not paid a single EMI. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) have nothing to do with the registration of the vehicle. The vehicle is registered in Bargarh RTO vide Regd No. OD-17-U-9484 and the Opposite Party No.3(three) dealer has provided the same documents (HLF) and the registration proven is made by the dealer. After submission of the RC copy in HLF the dealer received the final amount from HLF. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two), the Complainant to dismissed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two).
3) The case of the Opposite Party No.3(three) is that the Opposite Party No.3(three) did not appear before this Commission. Hence, Opposite Party No.3(three) is set ex-parte.
4) The case of the Opposite Party No.4(four) is that the Opposite Party No.4(four) has filed its version and submitted that the Opposite Party No.1(one) is not entitled to deliver the vehicle in question for plying on road in view of provision under Section 42 of C.M.V.Rule 1989 until final approval from Opposite Party No.4(four). The matter concerning with financers valid certificate and other matters is under consideration for which the final approval cannot be made. The Opposite Party No.4(four) imparts statutory service for the safeguard of general public, the case to be dismissed against the Opposite Party No.4(four).
5) Perused the documents filed by the Parties and following issues are framed.
Issues
- Whether the Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Parties.
- Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in their service ?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Issue No.1(one)
6) Learned Advocate for the Complainant had submitted that the Complainant has purchased a commercial vehicle i.e. Maruti Super Carry STD/White for his livelihood. The Complainant for financial assistance his approached the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two). Learned Advocate for Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) has submitted that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased and being used for transportation business and hence the Complainant is not a consumer as per the Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 mere allegation that the Complainant is not a consumer and is doing commercial activities is not sufficient. Rebuttal evidence has not been filed by the Opposite Parties. Accordingly the allegation of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) is not acceptable. The Opposite Party No.3(three) is the dealer of the aforesaid vehicle and Opposite Party No.4(four) is the registering authority the Complainant is the consumer of the Opposite Parties and has purchased the aforesaid vehicle for his livelihood.
Issue No.2(two)
7) The Complainant had filed a letter of Opposite Party No.3(three) where the Opposite Party No.3(three) has admitted that due to New CMV rule implemented by registering authority, the Opposite Party No.3(three) had delivered the vehicle super carry STD/While with affixing HSRP, without getting approval from Regional Transport Officer, Bargarh. It is the duty of the Opposite Party No.3(three) to issue registration of the vehicle before delivering to the Complainant. The aforesaid vehicle was purchased by the Complainant from Opposite Party No.3(three) being financed by Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.4(four) has done its duty by generating auto generated provisional registration No. OD-17-U-9484 dt. 06-10-2020, but the dealer has not uploaded certain documents i.e. “financers” valid Trade Certificate and Form 22 for which the Opposite Party No.4(four) objected for final approval of registration Number.
Rules 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.
“Delivery of vehicle subject to registration- No holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to purchaser without registration, without temporary or permanent.”
Hence, it is the duty of Opposite Party No.3(three) to deliver the vehicle by following proper procedure but the Opposite Party No.3(three) failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.3(three). Due to the non issuance of registration number the Complainant can not able to ply the vehicle on the road for which the Complainant got harassed and unable to pay his installment regularly.
The Opposite Party No.1(one), No. 2(two) and No.4(four) can not be liable for the deficiency in service caused by Opposite Party No.3(three).
Issue No.3(three)
8) As per supra discussion, the Complainant is entitled for relief claimed.
Accordingly it is ordered.
O R D E R
9) The Complaint is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party No.3(three) and dismissed against the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and No.3(three).
The Opposite Party No.3(three) is directed to supply the registration certificate to the Complainant bearing vehicle No. OD-17-U-9484 along with Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as litigation expenses to the Complainant within 45(forty five) days of this order, failing which the entire order shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
8) Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e. Dt.26/02/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Party No.3(three) and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
(Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
