Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 192
Instituted on : 01.05.2018
Decided on : 16.05.2024
Vikalp Saini age 31 years, s/o Sh. Sispal Saini R/o H.No.393/14 Chamanpura, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Balhara Auto Company, Opposite Khushbu Garden, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak-124001.
- Force Motors Company, Plot no.3, Sector-1, Pitampura Industrial Estate Pitampura, District Dhaar, Madhya Pradesh.
- RTA, RTA Office, Rohtak.
- Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Jannat Banquet Hall, Rohtak.-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Dharmender Singh Advocate for complainant.
Sh.S.P.Dhankhar, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Sh.Ashish Tehlan, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
Sh.Deepak Sethi Advocate for opposite party No.4
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he purchased a vehicle Force traveller Ti Mini Bus BS-VI from the opposite party no.1 on dated 21.09.2015 for a sum of Rs.1300000/- out of which Rs.200000/- was paid in cash and Rs.1100000/- as loan amount which was taken from the opposite party No.4. At the time of purchase, it was assured by the opposite party no.1 that the vehicle will be got registered by themselves from the RTA Office. But after some time the papers of the vehicle i.e. invoice form, sales certificate and form 22 were given to the complainant by the opposite party no.1 and it was told to the complainant that he had to appear before the RTA Office Rohtak with Ration Card, Voter Card or Aadhar Card, Insurance , Temporary number etc. for getting the RC of vehicle. Complainant deposited the documents with the office of opposite party no.3, but they returned the file by saying that they only register the 9+1 vehicle and the vehicle of the complainant was 17+1. Complainant again met with the opposite party No.1 and returned the documents on the assurance of opposite party no.1 that they will get registered the vehicle. But after 4 days, officials of opposite party No.1 returned the documents i.e. form no.22, invoice and sales certificate and asked the complainant to contact the opposite party no.3. Complainant again contacted the opposite party No.3 but they refused to pass the vehicle by saying that they can only pass the vehicle 9+1. Thereafter complainant came to know that the opposite party No.1 had issued two form no.22 i.e. one form is of 9+1 capacity and the other one was 17+1. Opposite party no.1 has made fraud with the complainant and opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to pay compensation. Opposite party No.3 is also liable as they refused to pass the vehicle of complainant whereas other vehicle of 17+1 are passed by the opposite party No.3. Due to non-passing of vehicle, complainant could not ply the vehicle on road and he has suffered a financial loss. As such he is unable to pay the loan amount to the opposite party no.4. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party no.3 may kindly be directed to get registered the vehicle, if the vehicle cannot be registered, then to cancel the loan amount and opposite party No.1 & 2 be directed to refund the amount of Rs.200000/- alongwith interest , to pay Rs.30000/- on account of insurance and Rs.11000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs.5500/- as file charges to the complainant.
2, After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 received back with the report of refusal and as such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.06.2018 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the detailed instructions about the vehicle are mentioned in the booklet issued with the vehicle to the dealer. It is submitted that the responsibility of the opposite party is limited to sale the vehicle to the dealer and thereafter dealer was an independent agency/person to sell the said vehicle to the buyer. There is no connection between the buyer and the manufacturer i.e. opposite party. The complainant was himself responsible to get registered the vehicle by his own. Issuance of two form no.22 is not in the knowledge of the opposite party even otherwise there is a lot of difference in the vehicle having sitting capacity 9+1 and 17+1. The difference can easily be seen by naked eyes that there was no need to see the form no.22 for checking of seating capacity of the vehicle. The issuance of Form no.22 by the dealer does not entitle the complainant to indulge the opposite party in false litigation. Therefore the opposite party cannot be held responsible for the act or omission on the part of complainant or dealer. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that complainant never visited to the office of opposite party no.3 for registration of the alleged vehicle. The complainant has made up false, fake and cooked up story and has filed this false complaint against the opposite party no.3 and thus same is liable to be dismissed with special costs on this ground alone. It is further submitted that when the complainant never visited to the opposite party no.3 then the question of harassment to complainant by opposite party no.3 does not arise. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party no.4 in its reply has submitted that complaint regarding availing of loan is matter of record and the complainant is liable to pay the same alongwith interest and other charges to the opposite party. In case, the complainant fails to repay the loan amount and commits default in payment of instalment, the opposite party has every right to take possession of the vehicle. . All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on 30.01.2019. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 and closed his evidence on 15.04.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed his evidence on 07.03.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A and closed his evidence on 08.07.2019.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. The facts of the case are that for registration of vehicle, form no.21 & form no.22 were issued by the respondent no.1 after mentioning the seating capacity as 9 +D but on the same date respondent no.1 after correcting the mistake issued form no.21 sale certificate and form no.22 of the vehicle after mentioning the seating capacity 17+D. The main allegation of the complainant is that the respondent no.3 refused the registration of vehicle in question and he prayed in his complaint that respondent no.3 be directed to register the vehicle in question.
8. We have minutely perused the written statement filed by the respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 has submitted that the complainant has concealed the facts because he never visited the office of opposite party No.3 for registration of the alleged vehicle. The complainant has made up false, fake and cooked up story and has filed this false complaint against the opposite party No.3 and thus same is liable to be dismissed. We have also perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. No doubt 2 type of forms 21 and Form 22 have been issued by the respondent no.2 regarding the vehicle in question in which 9+D and second 17+D sitting capacity is mentioned. But it has been submitted by the complainant that the respondent no.1 rectified the mistake. As per the opposite party no.2 complainant was himself responsible to get registered the vehicle by his own. Issuance of two form No.22 was not in the knowledge of the opposite party even otherwise there is lot of difference in the vehicle having sitting capacity 9+1 and 17+1. This difference easily seen by the naked eyes and there was no need to see the form no.22 for checking of seating capacity of the vehicle. The issuance of form no.22 by the dealer does not entitled the complainant to indulge the opposite party in false litigation. It has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint that the correct form 21 and 22 have been issued and handed over to him for registration of the vehicle. It is the prime duty of the complainant to approach the registration authority regarding the registration of the vehicle in question. In fact the complainant initially filed the complaint before this commission on 07.01.2016 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.11.2017. As per opinion in the previous complaint the complainant should move an application for registration of vehicle but the same was not done by the complainant. No document is placed on record by the complainant to prove the fact that the complainant approached the opposite party no.3 regarding registration of vehicle. Hence opposite party No.1 to 3 are not liable to register the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.05.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
..........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
