THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 530 of 2014
Date of Institution : 30.9.2014
Date of Decision : 23.09.2015
Shri Rishi Mehra son of Sh. Ramesh Mehra resident of 375/2, Gali Parja Beli Ram, Inside Hathi Gate, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Principal Officer
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Amit Puri,Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. S.M.Vermani,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Rishi Mehra under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one car EON Dlite from opposite party No.1 on 19.7.2012 . According to the complainant at the time of purchase of the aforesaid car, opposite party has given scheme package to the complainant in which Registration Certificate, Insurance, CDL, MP3, two speakers , Mats, Body Cover, Seat Cover, Wheel Cover Divinty, Anti rust wax coating, 10 litre petrol etc., free. The said car was purchased by the complainant for a total consideration of Rs. 3,39,831/- . The complainant made payment of Rs. 60500/- to the opposite party as down payment and the complainant applied for obtaining loan from HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,70,000/-.However, after passing of the loan, HDFC Bank passed amount to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- i.e.less amount of Rs. 45000/- and the complainant gave 10 post dated cheques to the tune of Rs. 4500/- each dated 28.12.2012, 17.1.2013, 1.2.2013, 2.3.2013, 3.4.2013, 2.5.20134, 5.6.2013, 8.7.2013, 31.7.20134 and 23.10.2013 in favour of the opposite party which were duly encashed by the opposite party. But the opposite party did not issue RC of the vehicle to the complainant, even after encashment of all the 10 post dated cheques . After encashment of all the ten post dated cheques, complainant again requested the opposite party to issue RC , but they asked the complainant to make additional payment of Rs. 14000/- for getting RC . . Complainant also served legal notice dated 7.7.2014 upon the opposite party to issue RC to the complainant as per scheme prevailing at the time of purchase of the car, but they did not listen the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to supply the RC to the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite party in its written version has submitted that out of the total cost of the car was Rs. 3,39,831/-, the complainant made only part payment of Rs. 69,830/- at the time of delivery of the car and the complainant requested that he would make remaining payment after 3-4 days as he had applied loan . Opposite party accpeted the request of the complainant and delivered the car to the complainant and remaining amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was to be paid by him within 3-4 days. But the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 9210/- on 9.8.2012 and the remaining amount is due to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 2,60,790/-.. The complainant paid another amount of Rs. 2,16,104/- on 26.9.2012 i.e. after more than 47 days and that too short by Rs. 44,686/-. It was submitted that due to delayed payment complainant was to pay interest @ 13% which comes to Rs. 4365/-. The complainant showed his inability to pay the interest of Rs. 4365/- + remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 44686/- and requested to allow the complainant to make the remaining payment in installments. As a goodwill gesture interest on the remaining amount to be paid was waived off by the opposite party . After that complainant started making payment and 10th cheque paid by the complainant got bounced which attracted penalty of Rs. 150/- which was debited to the account of the complainant. So an amount of Rs. 4365/- + Rs. 150/- is due towards the complainant. It was submitted that complainant was duly informed that formalities of Registration Certificate can be initiated only after receiving full amount from the complainant and for this purpose complainant was requested to make payment of Rs. 4515/-, so that formalities of registration certificate can be initiated , but the complainant failed to deposit the amount. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Som Nath, General Manager Ex.OP1.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for 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 car EON Dlite from opposite party No.1 on 19.7.2012 . Opposite party had given scheme package to the complainant in which registration certificate, Insurance, CDL, MP3, two speakers , Mats, Body Cover, Seat Cover, Wheel Cover Divinty, Anti rust wax coating, 10 litre petrol etc., were to be given free. The said car was purchased by the complainant for a total consideration of Rs. 3,39,831/- and the car was delivered to the complainant vide delivery challan dated 29.7.2012 Ex.C-4. The complainant made payment of Rs. 60500/- to the opposite party as down payment and the complainant applied for obtaining loan from HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,70,000/-.However, after passing of the loan, HDFC Bank has passed amount to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- i.e.less than Rs. 45000/- and the complainant gave 10 post dated cheques to the tune of Rs. 4500/- each which were duly encashed by the opposite party. But the opposite party did not issue RC of the vehicle to the complainant, even after encashment of all the 10 post dated cheques . The complainant also served legal notice dated 7.7.2014 Ex.C-5 on the opposite party through registered post, postal receipt of which is Ex.C-6. But even then the opposite party did not deliver the RC of the vehicle to the complainant. The opposite party asked the complainant to make additional payment of Rs. 14000/- for getting Registration Certificate, whereas opposite party has given in the package registration certificate of the vehicle free of cost. 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 is that the total cost of the car was Rs. 3,39,831/-. The complainant made only part payment of Rs. 69,830/- and at the time of delivery of the car, he made part payment of Rs. 9210/- on 9.8.2012. Then payment was received from the banker of the complainant after 47 days . But even that payment was short of Rs. 44,686/- and due to delayed payment the complainant was to pay interest @ 13% p.a which comes to Rs. 4365/-. The complainant gave 10 post dated cheques of Rs. 4500/- each. The 10th cheque of the complainant was dishonoured which attracted penalty of Rs. 150/-. As such a sum of Rs. 4365/- towards interest and Rs. 150/- on account of bouncing of cheque is still payment by the complainant. So the opposite party was justified in not issuing RC of the vehicle to the complainant because of non payment of the full amount of the vehicle . The complainant is also required to make the payment of difference of registration charges as increated by the State Govt., so that the opposite party could apply for RC of the vehicle of the complainant to the registering authority. 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 the complainant purchased the car in question EON Dlite from opposite party No.1 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,39,831/- on 19.7.2012. The complainant has stated that the opposite party has given scheme package to the complainant in which registration certificate, Insurace, CLD, MP3, Speakers,Body Cover,Seat Cover , 10 Ltr.Petrol etc were given free of cost and this fact has not been denied by the opposite party in their written version which fully proves that the opposite party has also given package of free registration cover/RC of the vehicle to the complainant. The said car was delivered to the complainant by the opposite party vide delivery challan dated 29.7.2012 Ex.C-4. No doubt the complainant made payment of Rs. 60,500/- to the opposite party as down payment because the complainant has applied for loan from HDFC Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,70,000/-. However, the said bank had passed loan to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- and this amount was transferred by the HDFC bank to the opposite party thereby they made less payment of Rs. 45000/-. So the complainant gave 10 post dated cheques to the tune of Rs. 4500/- each which were duly got encashed by the opposite party. No doubt one cheque of the opposite party was dishonoured by the banker of the complainant as alleged by the opposite party. However, the complainant made payment of Rs. 4500/- in cash to the opposite party. But the opposite party has to make payment of Rs. 150/- as penalty for bouncing of the cheque. Now the opposite party has been alleging that as the complainant has made payment in installments and that too late so a sum of Rs. 4365/- is payable towards interest by the complainant @ 13% p.a. The complainant is also liable to make payment of Rs. 150/- on account of bouncing of cheque ; thereby an amount of Rs. 4365/- + Rs.150/- =4515/- is still due payable by the complainant to the opposite party as the balance amount of the price of the car . So the opposite party did not give the RC of the car in question to the complainant. 9. It is clear that the opposite party gave the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant on 29.7.2012 as is evident from the delivery challan dated 29.7.2012 Ex.C-4 issued by the opposite party. So as per the package the opposite party was bound to get prepared the RC of the vehicle in question and deliver to the complainant within one month from the date of delivery of the car to the complainant ; otherwise the complainant was not in a position to ply the car on the road after the expiry of one month period of temporary registration. Opposite party has allowed the complainant to make the balance payment of the car in question in installments or later on by taking loan from financier that has no concern with the promises made by the opposite party to give the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant free of cost. So the opposite party was bound to deliver the RC of the vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of delivery of the vehicle in question to the complainant which was delivered to the complainant on 29.7.2012 as is evident from the delivery challan. But the opposite party even did not apply for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant to the registering authority i.e. concerned District Transport Officer (DTO) and in the mean time in the year 2014 Govt. Of Punjab enhanced the registration charges of the vehicle. So it is the opposite party who is at fault for not applying for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant to the concerned DTO within one month from the date of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant. So the opposite party cannot demand the enhanced charges of registration of the vehicle in question from the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party cannot with-hold the RC of the vehicle of the complainant only on the ground of non payment of interest or cheque bouncing penalty by the complainant which amounts to Rs. 4515/- only. The opposite party can recover this amount from the complainant by other means or they may ask the complainant to pay that amount of Rs. 4515/- while delivering the RC of the vehicle to the complainant. But the opposite party was certainly in deficiency of service for not delivering the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant and that too for a period of more than three years .As such the complainant has suffered loss as he could ot ply the vehicle in question on road without its registration for a period of more than three years because there was every risk that the vehicle could not impounded by the police as it has no permanent RC .
10. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to get prepared the RC of the vehicle of the complainant from the concerned DTO and hand over the same to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders, subject to payment of balance amount of Rs. 4515/- by the complainant to the opposite party . As the opposite party did not deliver the RC of the vehicle to the complainant for the period of more than three years from the date of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant by the opposite party, so the opposite party is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Resultantly the opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25000/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order 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.
23.09.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
