Punjab

Sangrur

CC/392/2016

Arashpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dhaliwal Autos Service - Opp.Party(s)

Shri J.S.Kaler

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  392

                                                Instituted on:    11.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       20.10.2016

 

 

Arshpreet Singh son of Ranjit Singh, resident of village Rampura Chhanna, PO Amargarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1.     Dhaliwal Autos, Opposite PNB Bhawanigarh, near Grain Market, Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur through its Prop/partner/authorised signatory.

2.     Guru Kirpa Motors, Ranbir College Road, Sangrur through its Prop/partner/authorised signatory.

3.     TVS Motor Company, Jaya Lakshmi Estates, 5^th Floor, 26 (Old No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai through its MD/authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Kaler Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri D.S.Dalee, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Arshpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one vehicle TVS Jupiter, the cost of which was Rs.58,000/- which included all the accessories, other charges, Registration charges, insurance etc. It is further averred that the complainant also sold one motorcycle to the Op number 1 for Rs.7000/- and after deducting the value of the motorcycle the complainant got financed the vehicle and the value of the Jupitor remained to be Rs.63,936/-. Further case of the complainant is that on 30.5.2016, the OP number 1 handed over the vehicle to the complainant and assured to get the registration certificate within a period of thirty days.  Further case of the complainant is that he approached the OP number 1 on 24.6.2016 and demanded the registration certificate of the vehicle,  but the OP number 1 told to come after some times. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the Op number 1 did not hand over the registration certificate of the vehicle despite demanding the same from the Op number 1.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the  OPs be directed to issue the registration certificate of the vehicle in question and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1,  it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the TVS vehicle in question.  It is further admitted that the price of the vehicle is Rs.58,800/- which includes all accessories, other charges, RC , insurance etc. It is further stated that the Op had received Rs.7000/- only from the complainant and the amount of Rs.6037/- is still due again him.  The loan disbursement amount received by the OP was Rs.45763/- and Rs.7000/- on account of adjustment price of the motorcycle in question and the remaining amount of Rs.6037/- is due against the complainant. It is stated that the registration certificate will only be got prepared if the complainant deposits the said amount. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             Record shows that the OPs number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 and 3 were proceeded exparte.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavis,Ex.C-3 copy of bill, Ex.C-4 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9 copies of service coupons and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle  in question from OP number 1 after raising the loan and also handed over the old motorcycle in question as admitted by the Op number 1.    In the present case, the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant paid the total price of the TVS Jupiter to the OP number 1  regarding the purchase of the vehicle in question which includes insurance, registration charges and other necessary charges, but despite that the OP number 1 did not issue the registration certificate to the complainant.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that the amount of Rs.6037/- still remains due against the complainant, as such they will hand over the registration certificate of the vehicle only if the complainant pays the amount of Rs.6037/-. But, it is not the case of the OP number 1 that the complainant did not deposit the registration charges of the vehicle. Since the complainant has alleged that he paid the full amount including the registration charges of the vehicle in question, but the OP number 1 failed to get prepared the same.    Moreover, there is no explanation from the side of OP number 1 that why the OP number 1 did not produce any detail of calculation of the amount.    Further there is no document on record produced by Op number 1 to show that the OP number 1 ever called upon the complainant to pay the dues, if any against the complainant.  Further it is the practice in Punjab, where it is mandatory for the purchasers of the vehicle to get the registration certificate prepared from the dealer (who sells the vehicle) meaning thereby the OP number 1 was duty bound to get prepared the registration certificate from the complainant, more so when, the OP number 1 has already received the charges for the same.  As such, we feel that by not delivering the registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant, the OP number 1 is not only deficient in service, but also has indulged in unfair trade practice by not delivering the registration certificate of the vehicle in question, as the complainant also deprived from using the vehicle in question in absence of the registration certificate of the car.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where OP number 1 is deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to deliver the registration certificate of the vehicle in question.  We further order OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.  However,  the Op number 1 is at liberty to recover the amount, if any, due towards the complainant in due course of law.

 

8.                     This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 20, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member