THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 219 of 2015
Date of Institution : 10.4.2015
Date of Decision : 17.11.2015
Mrs. Manvinder Kaur Bamrah wife of Sh. Sukhdev Singh Bamrah, resident of House No. 297, Medical Enclave, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Manager
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : S/Sh.Satnam Singh & Pardeep Mahajan,Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh.S.M.Vermani,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member & Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Manvinder Kaur Bamrah under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased New Grand i 10 Sports car from the opposite party on 23.6.2014 vide invoice No. H201400063 for Rs. 5,94,802/-. According to the complainant, opposite party gave discount of Rs. 4500/- and also charged Rs. 34223/- for RC of the car and Rs. 500/- for temporary number and as such total amount of Rs. 6,29,000/- was paid vide cheque No. 076234 on 28.6.2014. Complainant has alleged that it was duty of the opposite party to deposit the requisite tax and charges in the office of DTO Amritsar for the registration of the vehicle immediately. But the opposite party has not deposited the tax and other charges timely in the office of DTO , Amritsar and kept the amount with them for their own use for long time. Complainant has further alleged that in the meantime Government has increased the rate of tax in the registration of the vehicles and as such the opposite party illegally and unlawfully started demanding the said increased amount due to the fault on the part of the opposite party. The vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 23.6.2014 and more than nine months have been passed but till date the opposite party has not issued the RC of the vehicle to the complainant . Complainant visited the opposite party many a times and requested them to issue the registration certificate as the complainant is not in a position to run the said vehhicle on road. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to issue the registration certificate of the vehicle immediately. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant was informed that the road tax was increased w.e.f. 7th October 2015 from 6% to 8%. It was submitted that road tax was not deposited as customer file was not located and in between road tax was increased. The complainant was requested to deposit 50% of the increased road tax, which the complainant to refused to deposit. Now the opposite party is agreed to bear whole increased amount of road tax and the same was deposited with the DTO, Amritsar. The permanent registration number has also been allocated to the complainant . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Som Nath Khosla, General Manager Ex.OP1, copy of RC Ex.OP2, copy of service record Ex.OP3.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased New Grand i 10 Sports car from the opposite party on 23.8.2014 on payment of Rs. 5,94,802/- vide invoice dated 23.6.2014 Ex.C-3. The complainant submitted that opposite party gave discount of Rs. 4500/- and charged Rs. 34223/- for RC of the vehicle and also charged Rs. 500/- for temporary number, as such opposite party received a sum of Rs. 6,29,000/- from the complainant vide cheque No. 076234 from the account of the complainant on 28.6.2014 as is evident from the statement of account of Standard Chartered Bank Ex.C-4. The complainant has paid Rs. 34223/- as registration charges of the vehicle of the complainant, to the opposite party on 28.6.2014. So the opposite party was bound to provide the RC of the vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of delivery of the vehicle. But the opposite party did not provide the RC of the vehicle to the complainant. Opposite party has kept the said amount of RC paid by the complainant for a long time and used the same for its own purpose. In the meantime i.e. on 8.10.2014 Government of Punjab increased the rate of tax of the registration of the vehicles and the opposite party started demanding the said increased amount of registration of the vehicle from the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay the increased amount. Opposite party has not furnished the RC of the vehicle to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party as per affidavit of Sh. Som Nath Khosla, General Manager of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased new i 10 car on 23.6.2014 from the opposite party. The file of the complainant got misplaced as a result of which the registration formalities were not completed within time. Meanwhile the rate of tax for registration of the vehicles was increased by the State Government and the opposite party asked the complainant to bear one half of the increased tax. But the complainant refused to bear the said increased charges. Now the opposite party agreed to bear the full increased rate of tax and got the registration formalities completed in the month of June 2015 and got prepared the RC of the vehicle of the complainant, copy of which is Ex.OP2. The opposite party asked the complainant to get the RC of the vehicle on telephone , but the complainant refused to accept the same. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased new i10 Grand Sports car from the opposite party vide invoice dated 23.6.2014 Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 5,94,802/-. The complainant paid Rs. 34223/- for registration certificate of the vehicle, to the opposite party . In all the complainant paid Rs. 6,29,000/- to the opposite party vide cheque No. 076234 and this amount was debited to the account of the complainant on 28.6.2014 as is evident from the statement of account of the complainant in Standard Chartered Bank Ex.C-4. All this fully proves that opposite party received Rs. 34223/- as registration charges of the vehicle of the complainant on 28.6.2014. Opposite party was bound to supply the RC of the vehicle, to the complainant within one month from the date of delivery of the vehicle because the temporary RC number is valid upto one month only. But the opposite party did not deposit the registration charges of the vehicle of the complainant to the concerned department i.e. DTO , Amritsar, as such RC of the vehicle of the complainant could not be got prepared by the opposite party. In the meantime vide notification dated 8.10.2014 Government of Punjab increased registration charges of the vehicles. The opposite party was bound to get prepared and supply the RC of the vehicle, to the complainant by 28.7.2014. The rates of registration charges were enhanced by the State Government on 8.10.2014, as such the opposite party was liable to bear the enhanced charges of the registration of the vehicle of the complainant. No doubt the opposite party got prepared the RC of the vehicle of the complainant from the concerned department i.e. DTO, Amritsar, copy of which is Ex.OP2. But the opposite party did not hand over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant intentionally nor the opposite party got recorded any statement in this Forum that they are ready to supply the RC of the vehicle, to the complainant without charging any further amount. All this shows that the opposite party has intentionally harassed the complainant, either to pressurize him to pay the enhanced charges of the registration to the opposite party or to withdraw the complaint first. Moreover, the opposite party was bound to furnish the RC of the vehicle to the complainant within one month i.e. upto 28.7.2014 to the complainant. But uptil now even after the preparation of the RC , the opposite party did not hand over the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to hand over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant immediately within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10000/- and litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
17.11.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
