PER:
Varinder Pal Singh Saini, Member
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite party on the allegations that on 11.3.2020 the complainant purchased one Royal Enfield Motorcycle (Bullet 350 CC ABS) bearing Engine No. U3K5C1LB243495, Chassis No. ME3U3K5C1LB633931, Shead Black from the opposite party and for the same the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- but the opposite party has issued a bill of supply to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,21,840.64 Paise and a sum of Rs. 8,124/- as an insurance premium and the opposite party has charged Rs. 8,035/- as fee for the registration certificate of above said vehicle but the opposite party has intentionally and deliberately not issued any receipt regarding the registration certificate of the above said vehicle to the complainant. The above said amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- was paid by the complainant in the presence of Hira Singh son of Harnam Singh resident of Talwandi Soba Singh Village Gharyala Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. After the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant in the month of March 2020 visited the office of opposite party and requested the opposite party to hand over the registration certificate of above said vehicle which was applied by opposite party but the opposite party assured the complainant that within a few days the registration certificate will be handed over to the complainant as the registration certificate will be handed over to the complainant as the opposite party has already received a sum of Rs. 8,035/- as fee for the registration certificate . Thereafter, a number of time the complainant has contacted the opposite party and requested the opposite party to hand over the above said registration certificate of the above said vehicle which has been purchased by the opposite party but the opposite party time and again lingered on the matter by saying that due to the COVID-19 lockdown the registration certificate of the vehicle cannot be handed over to the opposite party. Now in the month of January 2021, the opposite party has flatly refused to give the registration certificate of the above said vehicle to the complainant and the opposite party told to the complainant that as per the notification of Government the BS-4 vehicles have been banned/ prohibited and the last date for applying the registration certificate was 18.3.2020 but due to negligent and malevolent Act of the opposite party, the opposite party did not apply for the registration certificate of the above mentioned vehicle of the complainant in time. As already stated above the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- to the opposite party in cash but the opposite party has issued bill of supply of the above said vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,21,840.64 Paise and Rs. 8,124/- as an insurance premium and an amount of Rs. 8,035/- as fee for the registration certificate in the presence of witnesses. The complainant has already served a legal notice dated 4.2.2021 to the opposite party through his counsel through registered post but the opposite party has not given any reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant. The complainant has prayed that the following reliefs may be granted in favour of complainant.
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to issue the registration certificate from the concerned authorities/ department to the complainant as mentioned above
Or
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to exchange the above mentioned BS(IV) vehicle to VS(VI) or to refund amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing harassment to the complainant and also be directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of Bill dated 11.3.2020 Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of Insurance dated 11.3.2020 Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Quotation No. 626 dated 10.3.2020 Ex. C-4, Affidavit of witness Hira Singh Ex. C-5.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same is merely an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The complainant is misleading this Commission by pleadings wrong facts against the opposite party. The complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this commission. The complainant did not deposit any charges regarding registration of the motorcycle as alleged. The complainant as well as his family member who accompanied her stated that they want a VIP number and therefore they will get the vehicle registered themselves. Even in the deal copy filed by the complainant alongwith complaint Marked as C.4, the price of the registration copy of the alleged vehicle is not mentioned which clearly shows that the present complaint is merely an abuse of process of law and it has been filed with malafide intention of wrongful gain. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the opposite party Deep Autos is situated at Bhatinda Road, Muktsar and it does not have any branch office in District Tarn Taran nor opposite party works for gain within the area of District Tarn Taran as such the present complaint is barred being out of jurisdiction before this Commission.. The complainant did not pay any charges for registration to the opposite party. The complainant don't know any alleged Hira Singh son of Harman Singh. As the alleged motorcycle was BS4 and later on as per the Government order the registrations of BS-4 vehicles have been banned and now the complainant is blaming the opposite party falsely with malafide intention for wrongful gain. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite party. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alognwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of manager/ authorized signatory Ex. R-1.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.
4 In the present case, according to complainant on 11.3.2020 the complainant purchased one Royal Enfield Motorcycle (Bullet 350 CC ABS) bearing Engine No. U3K5C1LB243495, Chassis No. ME3U3K5C1LB633931, Shead Black from the opposite party and for the same the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- but the opposite party has issued a bill of supply to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,21,840.64 Paise and a sum of Rs. 8,124/- as an insurance premium and the opposite party has charged Rs. 8,035/- as fee for the registration certificate of above said vehicle but the opposite party has intentionally and deliberately not issued any receipt regarding the registration certificate of the above said vehicle to the complainant. The above said amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- was paid by the complainant in the presence of Hira Singh son of Harnam Singh resident of Talwandi Soba Singh Village Gharyala Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. After the purchase of the vehicle, the complainant in the month of March 2020 visited the office of opposite party and requested the opposite party to hand over the registration certificate of above said vehicle which was applied by opposite party but the opposite party assured the complainant that within a few days the registration certificate will be handed over to the complainant as the registration certificate will be handed over to the complainant as the opposite party has already received a sum of Rs. 8,035/- as fee for the registration certificate . In the month of January 2021, the opposite party has flatly refused to give the registration certificate of the above said vehicle to the complainant and the opposite party told to the complainant that as per the notification of Government the BS-4 vehicles have been banned/ prohibited and the last date for applying the registration certificate was 18.3.2020.
5 On the other hand, case of the opposite party is that the complainant did not deposit any charges regarding registration of the motorcycle as alleged. The complainant as well as his family member who accompanied her stated that they want a VIP number and therefore they will get the vehicle registered themselves. Even in the deal copy filed by the complainant alongwith complaint Marked as C.4, the price of the registration copy of the alleged vehicle is not mentioned which clearly shows that the present complaint is merely an abuse of process of law and it has been filed with malafide intention of wrongful gain. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the opposite party Deep Autos is situated at Bhatinda Road, Muktsar and it does not have any branch office in District Tarn Taran nor opposite party works for gain within the area of District Tarn Taran as such the present complaint is barred being out of jurisdiction before this Commission.. The complainant did not pay any charges for registration to the opposite party. The complainant don't know any alleged Hira Singh son of Harman Singh. As the alleged motorcycle was BS-4 and later on as per the Government order the registrations of BS-4 vehicles have been banned and now the complainant is blaming the opposite party falsely with malafide intention for wrongful gain.
6 In the present case it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased motorcycle from the opposite party and it is not disputed that the complainant has got insured the same from the opposite party. The main dispute in the present complaint is regarding the payment of fee of registration certificate of motorcycle in question. According to complainant, the complainant has paid Rs. 8,035/- as fee for the registration certificate and on the other hands, the opposite party has denied this fact that they have received any amount against the registration certificate of the motorcycle in question. According to complainant, the complainant has made payment in the presence of one Hira Singh but the opposite party has also denied this fact. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on record any receipt regarding payment of the registration certificate of motorcycle in question. Now to decide this fact as to whether the fees against registration certificate has been made by the complainant to the opposite party or not detailed evidence, cross examination is required and intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case. As such , this District Commission cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgment which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
7 In view of above discussion, the instant complaint is relegated to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission
25.10.2023
