| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/286 of 1.12.015 Decided on: 5.7.2016 Dr.Harish Tuli S/o Harbans Lal Tuli, Resident of 91-A, Hira Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - The Managing Director, M/s Chevorlet Sales India Private Limited, Surinder Jhakahar Bhawan, IFFCO Complex, Plot No.3, Tower B, 3rd & 4th Floor, Sector 32, Gurgaon (Haryana)
- The Managing Director M/s Padam Motors (P) Ltd., 182/3, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.
- The General Manager M/s Padam Motors (P) Ltd., Rajpura Road, Patiala.
…………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Rishab Kapoor, Advocate For Op No.1: Sh.Dhiraj Puri, Advocate For Ops No.2&3: Sh.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate ORDER A.P.S.Rajput, PRESIDENT - Complainant Harish Tuli S/o Sh.Harbans Lal Tuli, resident of 91-A, Hira Nagar Patiala has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (Hereinafter referred to as the Ops) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act).The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
- On 11.12.2014, the complainant purchased the car make Chevorlet Beat Sunnite white, having key No.1108, chassis No.T 002146 and engine No.143240011 from Op no.3 after being influenced by the offer made by Op no.3 that the price shall include the amount of insurance and road tax as well as other expenses to be incurred for registration of the car and intimated the complainant that the registration of the vehicle shall be processed by Ops No.2&3. Delivery challan cum invoice No.1609 dated 11.12.2014 was also issued by the ops at the time of delivery of the car. The complainant signed all the documents required for the registration of the vehicle but the Ops failed to provide registration certificate of the vehicle despite so many requests and e-mails dated 30.9.2015 and 3.10.2015 sent by the complainant. A legal notice was also got sent upon the Ops but to no effect. It is averred by the complainant that without the permanent certificate of registration the complainant is unable to ply his vehicle on the road for which the complainant is suffering from mental tension , agony and physical harassment. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the Ops to refund Rs.2,98,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
- Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who appeared and filed their separate written versions.
- In the written statement filed by Op no.1 it is alleged that as the complainant has never paid a single penny to Op no.1 and as per the gazette notification of the State of Punjab under the Motor Vehicle Act, the Registration and Licencing Authority Punjab, in collaboration with the retailer are the only responsible persons, who had to provide registration certificate to the complainant and the manufacturer is not responsible to supply the registration certificate. It is alleged by Op no.1 that it has no role to play .The Op no.1 is bound by the warranty agreement only and thereby if the vehicle is not performing upto its marks then the responsibility of Op no.1 can be fixed and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1. After denouncing the other averments made in the complaint, it has been prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In the written statement filed on behalf of Ops no.2&3 the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant under the offer made by the Ops is admitted . It is further submitted by the Ops that the registration certificate of the vehicle is applied only after the completion of requisite formalities by the purchaser/complainant. The Ops No.2&3 admitted the issuance of challan cum invoice No.1609 dated 11.12.2014 but it is denied that the complainant had completed all the requisite formalities required for the registration certificate of the vehicle
- It is further submitted by Ops no.2&3 that after furnishing documents and completing formalities for registration of car, the documents alongwith requisite fee were submitted with DTO and permanent RC bearing No.PB-11-BU-4906 dated 3.11.2015 was issued by the DTO. It is further submitted that after receipt of RC by the Ops in the first week of November,2015, the Ops informed the complainant for the receipt of the same but the complainant failed to turn up to receive the RC. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, the sworn affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C1 copy of invoice, Exs.C2 and C3 copies of e-mails, Ex.C4, copy of ledger account, Ex.C5 copy of Pre-requisite Agreement with the Transport department and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand on behalf of Op no.1 , the counsel for OP no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Pawar, authorized signatory of Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., Ex.OP1 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Ex.OP2 copy of Standard Provisions of the CSIPL Retailer Agreement, schedule1, Ex.OP3 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 2, Ex.OP4 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 3, Ex.OP5 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, CSIPL Standards Total Retailer, Ex.OP6 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 4, Ex.OP7 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 5, Ex.OP8 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 6A, Ex.OP9 copy of owner’s manual and closed the evidence.
- The Ops no.2&3 tendered in evidence Ex.OPB the sworn affidavit of Sh.Dharamvir Rana, Manager of M/s Padam Cars, Ex.OP10 copy of registration certificate and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present complainant is that without the permanent certificate of registration the complainant is unable to ply his vehicle on the road and despite repeated requests the OPs are not providing the said certificate. The ld. counsel stated that as per the Ex.C1 copy of invoice, Ex.C2 and C3 copies of e-mails, Ex.C4, copy of ledger account, Ex.C5 copy of Pre-requisite Agreement, it is established that the complainant had purchased the car from OP no.3 and the OPs had been deliberately delaying to provide the registration certificate, despite receiving the consideration amount for the same. The ld. counsel pleaded that there is a total delay of more than 10 months from the date of purchase of the said vehicle and due to the negligence act of the OPs, the complainant was unable to utilize the said vehicle.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP no.1 has objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He submitted that the OP no.1 is the manufacture of the said vehicle and has no dealings with regard to issuing the temporary or permanent registration certificate of the vehicles manufactured by the OP no.1.The ld. counsel pleaded that as per the Ex.OP1 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Ex.OP2 copy of Standard Provisions of the CSIPL Retailer Agreement, schedule1, Ex.OP3 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 2, Ex.OP4 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 3, Ex.OP5 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, CSIPL Standards Total Retailer, Ex.OP6 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 4, Ex.OP7 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 5, Ex.OP8 copy of retailer sales and service agreement, Schedule 6A, the OP no.1 cannot be held responsible. He further pleaded that the dispute is between the OP no.2 and OP no.3,thus made submission for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP no.2 & 3 has submitted that the contentions of the ld. counsel for the complainant cannot be accepted. He stated that it is evident from the prayer clause of the complainant that the complainant has no where prayed for supply of registration certificate. He also stated that the complainant has prayed for refund of the sale consideration of the said vehicle, thus his complaint cannot be accepted. The ld. counsel pleaded that it is evident from the registration certificate i.e Ex.OP-10 that the date of issue mentioned on it is 03/11/2015 and the said certificate was already prepared but the complainant was not ready and willing to receive the same. He also pleaded that before issuing of legal notice dated 05/11/2015 and before filing the present complaint the said registration certificate was issued but the complainant in order to get a refund filed the present complaint, in order to pressurize the OPs. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant had not been able to place on record any material evidence, in order to prove that he had not been plying the said vehicle. The ld. counsel argued that the present complaint is a clear case of abuse of process of law and the complainant is using the tactics to get refund of the vehicle.
- After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we are of the opinion, that it is a admitted fact that complainant purchased the said vehicle from OP no.2.It is also evident from the copy of registration certificate i.e Ex.OP-10 that the date of issue was 03/11/2015.It is also evident that the said certificate was issued prior to issuing of legal notice and filing of the present complaint. It is also proved on record that vide emails i.e Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 the complainant had approached the OPs with regard to issuing of registration certificate and in response to the same, only OP no.1 persuaded the matter. There is nothing on record to prove that OP no.2 & 3 made any efforts to contact the complainant in order to hand him over the Registration Certificate. OP no.2 & 3 had not produced on record any letter/documents, where intimation was sent to the complainant for collection of the registration certificate. In absence of the said letter/documents, we are of the view that the OP no.2 & 3 acted negligently in supplying the registration certificate to the complainant, as and when it was delivered to the OP no.2 & 3.
- Accordingly in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied from the evidence produced on record, that OP no.1 had no responsibility with regard to issuing of registration certificate of the vehicle. The responsibility of the OP no.1 was only to the extent of manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed qua OP no.1.
- With regard to OP No.2 & 3,we are of the view that OP no.2 & 3 committed deficiency in services by not supplying the permanent registration certificate, as and when they had received it from the authorities. Hence we find complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental agony amounting to Rs.5000/- and litigation cost amounting to Rs.2000/-.
- The OP no.2 & 3 are directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. In case OP no. 2 & 3 fail to comply the same, within the stipulated period, the OP no. 2 & 3 shall be liable to pay 6 % interest P.A on the aforesaid awarded amount, till its realization. The present complaint stands partly accepted.
- The arguments on the complaint were heard on 28.6.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced Dated:5.7.2016 Neelam Gupta A.P.S.Rajput Member President | |
