DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   RUPNAGAR.

          Complaint Case No. 136 of 03.10.2022

                                                                                                     Date of Decision: 24.02.2023

Jupinder Singh aged about 38 years ,S/O late Kirpal Singh singh ,R/O # 52, Milk colony  Dhanas , Chandigarh

                                                                                      …… Complainant

                                                Versus

Branch Manager CM auto sales pvt. Ltd. Authorised dealer of maruti  Suzuki,Rangilpur ,Kurali  road ,Rupnagar                                                                                                                                            ……Opposite party

(Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act)

       QUORUM:

                          RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

     RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

      ARGUED BY:

             For complainant :     Sh. Harminder Singh  Advocate

             For OP              :    Sh. Pardeep Mittal Advocate

      ORDER

      PER RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the complainant was having Alto K10 old Maruti car bearing registration No.CH-01-AE-3346 of white colour. On 05.01.2022, the complainant along with his cousin approached opposite party (herein referred as OP) as they were willing to buy a new car in exchange scheme as offered by the OP. The concerned official of the OP assessed the value of above mentioned old car as Rs.1,45,000/- and the complainant agreed for the same and cousin of the complainant agreed to purchase the new car in proposed exchange offer. A text invoice dated 05.01.2022, in the shape of adjustment exchange performa was issued by the OP to complainant in which the conditions are mentioned The OP hold Rs.5000/- till transfer of Registration Certificate (herein referred as RC ) of said old car and OP further assured him that they will transfer the RC of Alto Car within three month from 5.1.2022. The cousin of the complainant has taken a new car from OP. All the required formalities were fulfilled by complainant as well as his cousin as per the instructions of the OP. It is further averred that it was shocking when the complainant received a challan in the shape of phone message on 3.7.22, it was very embarrassing for complainant and it is very clear that OP did not got transfer the RC in their name and in this regard complainant contacted with OP regarding the above said challan again and again but OP lingering on the matter on one pretext or other. It was very big negligence on the part of OP, and the complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Complainant further stated that any accident or any theft took place with the said car then the complainant will suffer mentally, physically and financially because the said car was still running in the name of the complainant, which has already been exchanged on 5.1.2022, with the OP in lieu a new swift car as per the exchange offer. OP totally fail to fulfil its promise to get transfer the said car in their name. Due to said act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered mentally as well as monetary loss. Complainant prayed to allow the reliefs such as
   1. To transfer the RC of the Alto K10 car in their name (ii) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment (iii) To pay Rs.15,000/- and for litigation expenses .
2. Upon notice, the OP has appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is not a consumer; that the answering OP has been unnecessarily dragged in this frivolous complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP; that the complainant has not suffered any loss due to non transfer of the RC of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser. On merits, it is stated that the complainant has just given his vehicle in exchange to the OP in lieu of vehicle purchased by the cousin of the complainant as admitted by the complainant. If the registration certificate of the vehicle is not transferred in favour of the purchaser, then there is specific provisions under Motor Vehicle Act for the same and complainant can avail that remedy under the Motor Vehicle Act or he can approach the Civil Court in this regard. On merit , it was submitted that OP after taking the vehicle of the complainant in exchange, the same was sold to one Lakhwinder Singh son of Amrik Singh resident of Village Kharaur District Nawanshahar and all the documents were handed over to him . He was directed to get the vehicle transferred in his name. The answering OP was having no role in transfer of vehicle. It was for new purchaser of old car Alto Sh. Lakhwinder Singh to get RC of the car in question transferred in his name after paying the necessary charges. The answering OP has asked new purchaser of the old car Sh. Lakhwinder Singh time and again to get the car transferred in his name. purchaser. Now he has applied for the transfer of registration certificate of the car in question in his name by depositing the necessary charges. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant against the answering OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the same.
3. In support of their case, the learned counsel for the parties have tendered certain documents Ex-OP1, Ex-OP2 Ex-OP3 , Ex-c-2, Ex-c-3, Ex-c-4,Ex-c-5, Ex-c-5, Ex-c-6 along with affidavits and have closed their respective evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the documents placed before the bench.
5. We have noted that The complainant has given his old Alto car to the OP in exchange of New car on 5.1.2022 and asked the OP to get the RC transferred in their name within three months. In lieu of this OP holds Rs. 5000/- till the transfer of the RC of the old car. But to the shocking of the complainant he received a challan of the old Alto car on 3.7.2022 from which it was clear that OP did not get the RC transfer in his name.
6. We have noted that since the OP holds Rs. 5000/- of the Complainant meaning thereby Complainant hires the services of OP to get his RC transferred.
7. We noted that Vide zimny order dated 20.2.22 reproduced as under:-

“Today, the learned counsel for the complainant has made a statement to the effect that he has received a cheque bearing No.956954 dated 08.02.2023 2023 for a sum of Rs.5000/- as which was hold by the OP in exchange offer. Oral arguments heard. Reserved for order”.

8. That the complainant has received Rs.5000/-, lying with the opposite party, without any objection.
9. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to refer to the dicta of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited reported at AIR 2020 SC 3149, which reads as follows:

“53. In our considered opinion, the National Commission erred in law in reversing the concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and the National Commission ignoring vital admitted facts as stated above, including registration of the said truck being in the name of the Appellant, even as on the date of the accident, over three years after the alleged transfer, payment by the Appellant of the premium for the Insurance Policy, issuance of Insurance Policy in the name of the Appellant, permit in the name of the Appellant even after three years and seven months, absence of 'No Objection' from the financier bank etc. and also overlooking the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as also other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including in particular the transferability of a policy of insurance Under Section 157.

54. In view of the definition of 'owner' in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Appellant remained the owner of the said truck on the date of the accident and the Insurer could not have avoided its liability for the losses suffered by the owner on the ground of transfer of ownership to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari.

Xxxx                      xxxx                               xxxx                                xxxx

57. The judgment and order of the National Commission is unsustainable. The appeal is,   therefore,   allowed.   The   impugned   order   of   the   National    Commission under appeal is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. The Insurer shall pay to   the   Appellant   a   sum   of   Rs. 4,93,500/-   as  directed by the District Forum with interest as FA 481/2018 Page 6 of 7 enhanced by this Court to 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. The sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- awarded towards the cost of litigation, is in our view grossly inadequate. The  Insurer shall pay a composite sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Appellant

towards costs and compensation for the agony caused to the Appellant by withholding his legitimate dues. The amounts as directed above shall be paid to the Appellant within six weeks from date of the judgment and order.”

10.  From the aforesaid dicta, it flows that even in cases where the RC is not transferred by the original owner in favour of the person to which it has been alleged that the ownership has actually been transferred, the Original Insured person remains as the “Owner” for the purposes of Motor Vehicles Act.
11. The facts of the present case are also similar to the aforesaid case since in the present case also, at the time when issue of transfer of RC is raised.
12. keeping in view of the above said judgement it is clear that the owner of the vehicle is responsible till the RC or any other document, as desired under the motor vehicle act,  is transferred in the name of next seller .But in this case we have also observed from the pleadings that the complainant have availed the service of OP to get the old car sold  and consequently get the RC transferred to the next seller.
13. Consequently, we hold that as per the submissions made in the above paras both  the complainant and the OP will get the challan settled jointly and till the RC is transferred in the name of next seller both complainant and the OP are  jointly responsible for subsequent events.
14. The above said case is disposed of accordingly in terms of the aforesaid submissions with direction to the OP to pay the litigation cost to the complainant as Rs. 3000/- from the date of receipt of certified copy of the above said order.
15.  The file file indexed and consigned to  record room.

                                                  Ranvir Kaur                                                                    Ramesh Kumar Gupta

                                                   (Member)                                                                          (Member)