O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Wagon-R LXI car from the OP on 20.3.2009 for total consideration of Rs.3,30,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs was paid by cheque dated 20.3.2009 drawn on Lord Krishna Bank and Rs.30,000/- was paid in cash against receipt bearing No.11121 dated 30.3.2009. It is further alleged that at the time of delivery of said vehicle, OP allotted a registration NO.DL-9CV-0567 for the vehicle and also issued an insurance policy of the said vehicle having same registration number, engine and chassis number etc. The complainant was promised and assured that the receipt of the registration will be given to the complainant within 15 days and registration certificate will be provided after two months. It has been further pleaded in the complaint that despite number of visits to the OP neither the receipt of registration nor the registration certificate was supplied to the complainant by the OP. It has also been averred in the complaint that on 16.12.2016, the above said vehicle met with an accident and suffered huge losses for the expenses were born by the complainant from her own pocket and she paid Rs.20061/-. The complainant has also pleaded that she and her husband contacted the OP a number of times for delivery of registration certificate but of no use. Legal notice was also served upon the OP but it met with the same fate. Vide the present complaint the complainant is claiming for issuance of directions to the Regional Transport Authority Office to allot registration No.DL-9CV-0567 exclusively in the name of the complainant alongwith issuance of original registration certificate. Also claimed is a sum of Rs.20061/- towards repairing charges, due to the losses suffered by the complainant on account of accident. The complainant has also sought a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental trauma, agony, harassment, humiliation, financial losses for treatment of complainant’s husband as well as cost of litigation.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP, who which has filed its written statement. In the written statement it has been pleaded that the complainant has not come to Forum with clean hands and suppressed all the true and correct facts. However, sale of the vehicle, consideration amount and mode of payment have not been denied by the OP. It has been denied in the reply that the OP had malafidely, unauthorizedly, intentionally issued the vehicle registration No.DL-9-CV-0567 to the complainant. It has been pleaded that the complainant insisted for issuance of said running number to her vehicle on the ground that being an employee in the Sales Tax Department at the relevant point of time she would get the said number issued in her name from the Transport Authority. It is alleged in the reply that believing her statement, the OP issued the said number to her otherwise the said number was blocked by the Transport Authority. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that the number in dispute has not been issued by OP to any other person nor it was competent to issue the same as the same was blocked by the Transport Authority. It has been further pleaded in the reply that once the complainant failed to get the said number approved allotted from the Transport Authority, OP requested the complainant to get the said number changed but the complainant became reluctant and filed a false complaint before the Forum. It has been pleaded by the OP that at no point of time it has ever refused to get issued a fresh number and therefore, the question of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice does not arise. It has been further averred in the reply that the factum of accident or refusal of any claim by the Insurance Company has never been communicated to the OP. Further no documents with regard to the accident or amount spent on the repair of the accidental vehicle has been filed by the complainant on record. OP on above premises has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits and documents. Both the parties have also filed their written submissions. We have gone through the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the vehicle Maruti Wagon-R LXI was sold by the OP to the complainant. Various documents placed on record such as Insurance Policy, Satisfaction Note, Vehicle pick and drop. Letter, Jobcard issued by Aalianz Automobiles show that vehicle was given registration number No.DL-9-CV-0567 was given by OP infact this fact is also not disputed by the OP. There is evidence on record which shows that reminder and notices were sent to the OP demanding the registration number which has not been provided by the OP. Although Ex. CW1/4 which is a jobcard issued by Allianz Automobiles shows that a sum of Rs.20060/- has been purported to have been received by cash but there is no proper receipt, police report, FIR and photographs of the accident or other evidence which can show that the vehicle met with an accident. This jobcard is dated 23.12.2009 during which period the vehicle with registration No. involved in this case was under insurance by National Insurance Co. as is proved from Ex. CW1/3. The complainant has not placed on record any notice/intimation having being issued to the NIC or documents showing that any claim was lodged with the said Insurance Co. The complainant has also not arrayed National Insurance Co. as OP in this case also and it cannot be, therefore inferred as to whether the sum of Rs.20060/- was paid by the Insurance Co. or not. In any circumstances, this liability of Rs.20060/- cannot be fastened to the seller of the vehicle i.e OP especially when the vehicle was insured for the relevant period.
4. The other issue involved in this matter now is regarding the issuance of directions to the Transport Authority for allotment or issue of registration certificate No.DL-9-CV-0567 exclusively to the complainant. The documents placed on record reveals that this number has already been allotted on 9.2.2009 to one Sh. Inder Mohan Kapoor, who is also not an OP before us. Therefore, in the circumstances, it will not be appropriate for this Forum to pass any directions to the RTO to issue or re-allot this registration number to the complainant. After carefully consideration of the facts and circumstances in this case we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to get the complainant a new registration number in her name within 60 days for which OP shall bear all the expenses and the complainant will sign and execute the necessary documents in this regard.
5. As the OP was aware that DL-9-CV-0567 has been blocked by the Transport Authority it was not desirable for the OP to issue/allot the said number to the complainant on the grounds that she being employed in Sales Tax Department will get it allotted from RTO/Transport Department. Therefore, OP is found to be guilty of following unfair trade practice and for which complainant needs to be adequately compensated. Therefore, we feel that ends of justice would be met if complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation which will also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 17th day of March, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
