Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/20

Prem Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhakra Service Station - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jawahar Chandan, Adv

27 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  20 of 26.03.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :     27.07.2018

 

Prem Kumar Uppal, aged about 61 years, son of Sh. Jagdish Ram Uppal, VPO Darolli, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd. Ropar, Kurali Road, NH-21, Near Toll   Barrier, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through its Manager Director, Satish Kumar Chabbra.

                                                                          ....Opposite Party

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Jawahar Chandan, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, Adv. counsel for O.P. 

 

                                           ORDER

              SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to hand over the Registration Certificate of the i20 car bearing number PB-12-AD-0155; to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of physical and mental agony and financial loss.   

2.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that in the month of July, 2017, the complainant approached the O.P. for purchase of Hyundai i20 car and after negotiating the deal, the O.P. offered to sell the car for the full and final sale consideration of Rs.8 Lack which was on road price of the car and includes all the summary expenses, registration charges and insurance policy charges etc. The payment in this regard was dully received by the O.P. and the payment is acknowledged by the O.P. by issuing a receipt dated 29.7.2017. As now as per the government rules the purchaser is supposed to deposit all registration charges of the vehicle in the agency itself and it is the agency which applies to the transport department for the issuance of registration certificate of the vehicle and the complainant deposited the entire amount of taxes etc (including the RC processing fee) which the O.P. otherwise cannot claim, which includes in the said amount of Rs.8 Lakh and the RC and the registration number of the vehicle was punched online at the time of sale of said car and the regular registration number i.e. PB-12-AD-0155 was issued by the O.P. at the time of sale of the vehicle. At the time of the sale, it was promised by the O.P. that the RC of the vehicle shall be handed over to the complainant within 15 days and it was also assured that he need not take care about the status of the file with the transport department. After the day of sale agony and suffering of the complainant started. The complainant approached the OP through MD Sh. Satish Kumar Chabbra on many occasions for the issue of registration certificate thereafter but OP till date is keeping the matter pending on one pretext or the other. The complainant is an Advocate by profession and due to nature of his work he needs to travel a lot but since the complainant does not have the registration certificate of the car in question  hence his movement is restricted and due to which he is suffering professional as well as personal loss as the complainant is not able to move swiftly now. Since the documents of the car of the complainant are not complete hence on many occasions the complainant is forced to travel by hiring a CAB on the higher rates and it added up as financial burden on the complainant. Hence, this complaint.   

  3.  On notice, O.P. appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering O.P.; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts; that the complainant is not consumer of the answering O.Ps; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P; that the complaint has been filed by the complainant on the basis of the totally wrong, false and vague facts. On merits, it is stated that  complainant is fully aware of the system. The complainant agrees that the O.P. has given him the provisional RC bearing No.PB-12-AD-0155.  The file of the O.P. was sent to the office of RTO/DTO Rupnagar for the further action, hence there is no delay or lapse on the part of the answering O.P. Rather all it at the end of the office of RTO/DTO.  In acse there is any delay at the end of RTO then the dealership would not responsible for such unforeseen delays. In the present case too there is no delay at the end of dealer rather there was departmental delay on the part of RTO. In this regard a letter No.280/TC dated 26.12.2017 was also issued by licensing and registration authority cum SDM Rupnagar, to the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab wherein it has been mentioned that a new software is not working properly and the public is coming daily from Distant Places and is getting disappointed for non functioning of these software as works of public are not being done due to the said technical problems and public is facing the late fee charges to the great extent. The answering O.P. has also sent a mail to the office on 16.2.2018 wherein the particulars of the said vehicle of the complainant were also mentioned at serial No.2 by the answering O.P. Apart from all this the complainant himself had admitted this fact in the vehicle registration process and undertaking signed by the complainant on 29.7.2017 wherein he has also given an undertaking to the effect that if the receipt of registration certificate or smart car is delayed by the RTO then the dealership would not be responsible for the unforeseen delay and further that such delay may be there which may be beyond the tentative date mentioned above in circumstances beyond the control of dealership.  

  4.  On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, duly sworn affidavit of Sudhir Kumar, c/o Balaji Tour and Travel, Ex.OPCW2/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. has tendered sworn affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar Chabbra, MD of Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.  

 5.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.    Complainant counsel Sh. Jawahar Chandan, argued that on 29.7.2017, complainant purchased Hyundai i20 car for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-from OP. At the time of purchase, complainant also paid the road tax in lum-sum as prescribed to O.P., who assured to get the RC within one month. After deposit of road tax O.P. did not apply/furnish the documents to the licensing authority, Ropar, i.e. why complainant has to bear the loss of non plying of the car. Complainant has to go at different places and to enjoy vehicle but because of non issuance of the RC, complainant could not ply the car and for going at different places paid Rs.10,000/-, Rs.9000/- and Rs.10,000/- to the taxi owner Sudhir Kumar on 12.11.2017, 3.12.2017 and 11.12.2017. After the lapse of one year approximately, complainant is fail in receiving the RC i.e. why the present complaint was preferred in the month of April, 2018. Complainant could not use the vehicle as per his requirements, which amounts to deficiency in service. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

7.    O.P. owner of the Bhakra Service Station along with Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, Advocate, come present who firstly produced the RC bearing No.PB-12AD-0155 of the car in question stating that the RC has been received from the licensing authority, Ropar, after receipt OP contacted the complainant and requested the receipt the RC but Prem Kumar refused. On merit, the learned counsel pointed out the documentary evidence placed on file. Firstly the letter dated 01.08.2017 vide which necessary documents including road tax was presented before the licensing authority, online then learned counsel referred the letter issued by the licensing authority dated 26.12.2017 vide which it was made clear that due to official hurdle, the RCs are not issued and there is no fault of the dealer. By referring Ex.OP2, then referred Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5. Beside this OP relied upon the rules that on applying the online RC, the licensing authority is duty bound to convey the RC at the given address of the consumer. Then counsel forcefully argued that it is the plea of the complainant that due to non issuance of the RC he could not avail the services of the i20 car then referred the office record that complainant from time to time got the service i.e. 1st/2^nd whereas 3^rd service availed on 29.5.2018 when the speedometer of the car was showing mileage 19435 Kms. If the complainant travelled/covered the mileage near about 20,000/- Kms within nine and half months then it cannot be observed that due to non issuance of the RC by the licensing authority he cannot use. All the story put forth by the complainant is without merit. More so, there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. rather it is on the part of the licensing authority, which is not impleaded in this complaint as party (OP). Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

8.    The sale/purchase of the vehicle and payment of policy premium as well as road tax towards registration of the vehicle are paid by the complainant to the O.P. Complainant come forward due to non receipt of RC, whereas, OP tried to prove his level best that when road tax deposited in time, papers submitted to the licensing authority then there is no deficiency. Under these circumstances, it is a consumer complaint and this Forum has the jurisdiction.

9.    If the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.P. then certainly he is entitled for compensation. At the same time, in case Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd proves the deposit of road tax and submission of file to the licensing authority then the persuasion from time to time for the issuance of the RC then no deficiency made out. 

10.  Complainant purchased i20 car make Hyundai on 29.7.2017 by making payment as per the settlement/invoice. Beside the price of the vehicle complainant also paid the road tax for the registration purpose. Complainant has made the prayer that lapse is on the part of OP, whereas, complainant produce one letter mark A vide which proves that issuance authority of RC, Rupnagar and papers submitted on 1.8.2017. So this document proves that after deposit of road tax online, OP applied for the registration in the name of complainant qua the vehicle in question. Beside this OP made request to the higher authorities qua the RC including State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and in reply to request of OP State Transport Commissioner, Punjab written a letter by licensing authority Ropar, to the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, pleading the delay in issuance of the RC due to pending files as well as non deposit of file online etc. There is one another letter Ex.OP3 dated 16.2.2018 on behalf of OP to the licensing authority for the registration of the vehicle. Further more there is one request Ex.OP4, vide which the entire pending vehicles for RC were requested for issuance of the registration certificate (RC).  Name of complainant figures at serial No.2 Prem Kumar Uppal, vehicle bearing No.PB-12-AD-0155. Counsel for the OP also referred the letter ExOP5 which is under the head.

                   "Vehicle registration process and undertaking"

                   At the bottom there is customer undertaking and its relevant portion                           reproduced as under:-

                   All the above conditions have been read and understood by me.

"I on my own willingness have requested Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd (Dealership name) to assist me in getting the permanent registration of my vehicle. I fully agree and understand that Registration of the Car and Receipt of Registration Certificate/Smart Card may get delayed beyond the tentative date mentioned above in circumstances beyond the control of dealership".

11.  Complainant alleged delay in issuance of RC and taken the stand it amounts to deficiency in service, whereas, OP produced adequate evidence proving best efforts, only delay on the part of the licensing authority, which is not the party (OP). After appreciating the totality of the document, forum has come to the conclusion that no doubt complainant purchased vehicle and provisional RC w.e.f. 23.10.2017 to 22.11.2017, copy of which is Ex.C2 was supplied to the complainant. The O.P. vide mark A proved deposit of road tax and apply online. Then proved correspondence between OP and the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab/licensing authority. Further, there is undertaking of the customer (complainant) that if RC or Smart Card get delayed beyond the tentative date mentioned or circumstances beyond the control of dealer then the dealer cannot held responsible. Relevant portion reproduced in earler part of the order.

12.  So far the complainant version that due to non issuance of the policy, he has to hire taxi to go at different parts of the state/country and the loss is pleaded through Ex.C5 to Ex.C7. These receipts are issued by Sudhir Kumar on different dates giving status Tour and Travels. But in these receipts there is no vehicle number and the destination of journey. When neither vehicle number given by the tour and travels nor the destination then these receipts cannot be relied upon. At the same time, OP placed on file the detail of services of the vehicle and complainant got the service effected from the authorized agency No.N8209 Una, on 17.5.2018 qua Hyundai i20 Car bearing No.PB-12-AD-0155 and mileage shown 19435/- which proves that car is in operation and is being utilized for journey purposes.

13.  In the light of above discussion, the complaint stand dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. As stated by the O.P. RC received one week ago and today produced in the Forum, which is attached to the file. Ahlamd is directed to keep the said RC in safe custody. However, complainant is at liberty to collect the same by moving application.        

14.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.27.07.2018                                     PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER