1        Sh. Rajdawinder Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under         the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited C.H. Motors through its authorized officer having office/ showroom at G.T. Road, Bye Pass, near Police Post, O/P Ryan Public School Amritsar Tehsil and District Amritsar (Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors) and District Transport Officer, Tarn Taran having office near Bus Stand, Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran  (Opposite Party No. 2) on the allegations of deficiency in service with further prayer to direct Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors to deposit the full amount received from the complainant to opposite party No. 2 and got corrected the Engine Number and Chassis Number on the R.C. as per the correct numbers mentioned on the vehicle. Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors may also be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for business loss as well as for mental and physical harassment to the complainant besides this Rs.10,000/- may also be awarded as costs of litigation

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors is dealing in the business of sale, service & spare parts of the Tata Motors as such is authorized dealer of Tata Motor Company; that the complainant purchased a Tata Safari bearing No. PB46-K-5140 from authorize EX 4*2 7 seater bearing chassis No. MAT403725ENB01319 and Engine No. 22LDICOR09BVYJ02592 in the year of 2014 from Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors against retail invoice dated 19.2.2014 and paid Rs. 9,74,096 and the said vehicle was got financed by the complainant from Punjab National Bank; that as per the prevailing rules and regulations, the registration certificate of the vehicle s got issued at the instance of seller of the vehicles from the concerned DTO and as such the complainant has further paid full amount to Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors on account of preparation of registration certificate of vehicle in question and submitted all the relevant documents in this regard; that in the year 2016 when the agent of insurance company came to inspect the vehicle for the purpose of issuing of insurance policy one of the insurance agent told that the Engine Number and the chassis Number mentioned on the vehicle did not match with the Engine Number and Chassis Number on the Registration of the vehicle whereas Engine Number is mentioned as DICOR09AVYJ01673 and Chassis Number is mentioned as 403725END00859 but however the right numbers are mentioned on the bill/ invoice issued to the complainant for the vehicle; that on coming know the complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors and narrated all the facts with request to do the needful for the correction of the above said mistake but of no effect; that the official of opposite party No. 2 after verifying the relevant record have told the complainant that his registration certificate could not got corrected as the contents regarding the purchase of the vehicle are different, which were submitted by the dealer for registration of R.C. and the contents of the bill produced by the complainant are different. Furthermore the purchased amount of the vehicle is mentioned as 7,02,700/- in the documents submitted by the dealer and the actual price of the vehicle is Rs. 9,74,096/- and as such the opposite party No. 2 denied to make the necessary correction. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to opposite party No. 1 to do the needful but Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors told that the complainant can do whatever he wants and refused to admit the genuine request of the complainant. Hence the present complaint.

3        Notice issued to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 despite due service, hence Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 5.7.2016 of this Forum.

4        Opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the claim of the complainant by taking preliminary objections interalia that the present complaint is malafide one and has been filed just to harass the Opposite party No. 2; that the complainant has suppressed material facts from this Forum; that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action against the opposite party No. 2; that the present complaint is abuse of process of law; that the true facts are as per new instructions of Punjab Govt. dated 4.11.2011 the auto dealer are first registering authority and at the time of sale new vehicle by the auto dealer all the documents regarding its registration are prepared by auto dealer. After preparing the same, all those documents are to be sent to the office of District Transport Officer and after that R.C. is prepared by the D.T.O Office on the basis documents issued by the auto dealer. In the present case, the documents regarding vehicle in question were sent by concerned agency through online computer process. The detail of which is as follows:-

          Chassis No.                   DICOR09AVYJ01673

          Engine No.           403775END00859

          Model No.            Safari DICOR LX 7 Seater     

          Bill Amount         Rs. 8,03,186/-

          Govt. Tax             Rs. 56,216/-        

On the basis of aforesaid documents sent by the concerned agency, the officials of  DTO Tarn Taran prepared the R.C. of the vehicle in question. Lateron one application was moved for the correction of Engine Number and Chassis Number. As per new documents provided for correction  the bill amount of vehicle is Rs. 9,74,096/-. As per the instructions of Punjab Govt. the Tax which is charged for registration is Rs. 71,173/-. The official of D.T.O. Tarn Taran asked the complainant to send new documents alongwith remaining tax fee through Auto Dealer so that they can prepare correct R.C. of vehicle in dispute. But the complainant failed to do so. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 took up same and similar plea as taken by them in the preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5        In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered  his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C.1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-23, affidavit of Harbhajan Singh Senior Manager Punjab National Bank Malia Ex. C-24 alongwith document s Ex. C-25 to C-30 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 tendered affidavit of Raman Kumar Kochhar Ex. OP2/1and closed the evidence.

6.       We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and Ld. counsel for opposite party No. 2 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7        From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors is dealing in the business of sale, service & spare parts of the Tata Motors as such is authorized dealer of Tata Motor Company; that the complainant purchased a Tata Safari bearing No. PB46-K-5140 from authorize EX 4*2 7 seater bearing chassis No. MAT403725ENB01319 and Engine No. 22LDICOR09BVYJ02592 in the year of 2014 from Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors against retail invoice dated 19.2.2014 and paid Rs. 9,74,096 and the said vehicle was got financed by the complainant from Punjab National Bank; that as per the prevailing rules and regulations, the registration certificate of the vehicle s got issued at the instance of seller of the vehicles from the concerned DTO and as such the complainant has further paid full amount to Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors on account of preparation of registration certificate of vehicle in question and submitted all the relevant documents in this regard; that in the year 2016 when the agent of insurance company came to inspect the vehicle for the purpose of issuing of insurance policy one of the insurance agent told that the Engine Number and the chassis Number mentioned on the vehicle did not match with the Engine Number and Chassis Number on the Registration of the vehicle whereas Engine Number is mentioned as DICOR09AVYJ01673 and Chassis Number is mentioned as 403725END00859 but however the right numbers are mentioned on the bill/ invoice issued to the complainant for the vehicle; that on coming know the complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors and narrated all the facts with request to do the needful for the correction of the above said mistake but of no effect; that the official of opposite party No. 2 after verifying the relevant record have told the complainant that his registration certificate could not got corrected as the contents regarding the purchase of the vehicle are different, which were submitted by the dealer for registration of R.C. and the contents of the bill produced by the complainant are different. Furthermore the purchased amount of the vehicle is mentioned as 7,02,700/- in the documents submitted by the dealer and the actual price of the vehicle is Rs. 9,74,096/- and as such the opposite party No. 2 denied to make the necessary correction. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to opposite party No. 1 to do the needful but Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors told that the complainant can do whatever he wants and refused to admit the genuine request of the complainant. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record by the opposite party No. 1 as  Opposite Party  No.1 despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. On the other hand, the complainant has not  sought any relief against Opposite Party  No.2.

8.         In this way, the Opposite Party  No.1 has  impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Party No. 1 has no defence to offer or defend the complaint. The complainant  has prayed to direct Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors to deposit the full amount received from the complainant to opposite party No. 2 and got corrected the Engine Number and Chassis Number on the R.C. as per the correct numbers mentioned on the vehicle. Opposite Party No. 1- C.H. Motors may also be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for business loss as well as for mental and physical harassment to the complainant besides this Rs.10,000/- may also be awarded as costs of litigation  In our considered view, Opposite Party  No.1-C.H.Motors is directed to  deposit the full amount received from the complainant to opposite party No. 2 for the preparation of the RC and got corrected the Engine Number and Chassis Number on the R.C. as per the correct numbers mentioned on the vehicle.  But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation

has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Opposite Party No.1 is  granted one month time to comply with the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing the order until full and final payment. The complaint stands allowed accordingly against Opposite Party  No.1. However, the complaint against Opposite Party  No. 2 stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.