Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/72/2015

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Naresh Malhotra & others - Opp.Party(s)

Randhir Singh Mehra

24 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.72 of 2015

                                                            Date of institution:  10/08/2015                                                                    Date of decision  :   24.06.2016

Manjit Singh aged about 34 years son of Sh. Kashmir Singh resident of House No.1674, ward No.6, Todar Mal Colony, Jyoti Sarup Mor, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1.     Dr. Naresh Malhotra(E.N.T.), College road, near Rose Garden, near Sofat Clinic, Ludhiana-141001.

2.     M/s Stan Wheels Private Ltd., Chandigarh road, Vill. Attewali, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor Dr. Naresh Malhotra.

3.     M/s Stan Wheels Private Ltd., G.T.Road, near G.P.S. College, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor Dr.Naresh Malhotra.

4.     Manpreet Singh son of Sh. Balbir Singh resident of Main Bazar, near Banti Di Chakki, Sirhind City, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

5.     Regional Office(North II) Maruti Sazuki India Ltd., S.C.O.39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160008.

6.     Pankaj Narula(Executive Officer) Service Maruti Sazuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon road, Gurgaon(Haryana)-122 015.

  …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                   Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

 

Present :           Sh. R.S.Mehra, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                                            None for OPs No. 1 to 4 & 6.

OP No. 5 exparte.

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Manjit Singh aged about 34 years son of Sh. Kashmir Singh resident of House No.1674, ward No.6, Todar Mal Colony, Jyoti Sarup Mor, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant has purchased one Maruti Alto Car 800 LXI bearing its temporary No.PB-23K-2017, Chassis No.480778, Engine No.5264924 from OP No.2, who got delivered the same from OP No.3 on 03.09.2014. The complainant paid Rs.54,000/-( i.e. Rs.30,000/- as down payment and Rs.24,000/-  for registration certificate) to OP No.1 and 2 on 03.09.2014. The vehicle in question was financed by OPs No.1 and 2 through H.D.F.C.Bank Ltd. and payment of insurance of the vehicle was paid by the complainant separately to OPs No.1 and 2 from the said loan amount.  It was agreed between the complainant and OPs No.1 and 2 that the complainant will pay the installments of the said loan to the HDFC Bank Ltd. and the registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle in question would have to hand over by the OPs by registering the same with concerned registration authority as per the rules of Punjab State Transport Commission within 21 days.  The complainant is regularly paying the installments of the said loan to the said bank. The complainant so many times visited the OPs and requested to hand over the registration certificate of the said vehicle but OPs remained lingering on the matter by one pretext or the other and in the last week of March 2015, the OPs have totally refused to hand over the original registration certificate of the said vehicle, rather they started suggesting the complainant to get the original documents of the vehicle and to prepare the RC on his own responsibility. All the original documents pertaining to the said vehicle are still in possession of the OPs and due to which the complainant cannot ply the said vehicle on the road. It is further stated that after passing of 21 days from the date of purchase of any vehicle, penalty has to be paid to the registering authority as late fees, for which OPs are also responsible. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to hand over the original registration certificate of the vehicle in question by registering the same with the registration authority and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.

3.                   Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs. OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through counsel Sh. Harjit Singh, Advocate and OP No.4 appeared in person but they failed to file written version despite several opportunities. OP No.5 failed to turn up despite service but later on OPs No.5 and 6 sent their written version through post.

4.                   OPs No.5 and 6 have sent their joint written reply. In reply to the complaint they raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant is not a 'Consumer' as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986; the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and the present complaint is not maintainable against them. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated that relationship between OP No.6 and OPs No. 2 and 3 are on principal to principal basis as is governed under the provisions of Dealership Agreement executed between them. OPs No. 2 and 3 are separate and independent legal entities under the Companies Act, 1956.  OP No.6 does not sell the vehicles so manufactured by it to any individual customer directly. It sells the vehicles against C- form sale to its dealer including OP No.2 and 3, who sell the same to their customer under its invoice and sale certificates. It is further stated that the complainant has admittedly booked the vehicle in question with OP No.1 & 2 under a contract for sale of goods after having entered into an agreement with OPs No.1 & 2. The complainant has paid the alleged amount towards booking of vehicle to OP No.1 and 2. The complainant has neither paid the alleged amount to OPs No. 5 & 6 nor OP No.5 & 6 are/were liable to sell/deliver the vehicle in question to complainant. It is further stated that OPs No.5 & 6 are not liable to hand over the original RC for the vehicle in question to the complainant as alleged and they are not involved in registration activities of the vehicle in question as per Motor Vehicle Act. There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant and against the OPs No. 5 and 6. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No. 5 and 6 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them.

5.                   In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence attested copy of Form C.R.Tem. Ex. C-1, attested copy of bank statement Ex. C-2, attested copy of insurance policy Ex. C-3, attested copy of job card retail cash memo Ex. C-4, his affidavit Ex. C-5, affidavit of Surinder Singh Ex.C-6, attested copy of notification dated 07.10.2014 Ex. C-7, attested copy of citizen charter Ex. C-8, attested copy of owner's manual & service booklet Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence. Opposite parties failed to tender any evidence despite several opportunities. Hence, their evidence was closed by order.

6.                   The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that at the time of purchase of the said car, the OPs had assured to the complainant that they would get the registration certificate(RC) issued from the concerned registering authority as per rules of the Punjab Transport Department. The OPs had already received the entire charges like Registration fee and taxes from the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the complainant has been regularly paying the loan installments to the said bank as was evident from the bank statement. That the complainant so many times visited and requested the OPs to hand over the RC but in vain. Even now after a lapse of 21 months from the date of delivery of the vehicle, RC has not been handed over to the complainant and in the absence of the RC, the complainant's vehicle has been challaned so many times by the traffic police on which count he also needs to be compensated. All the original documents of the vehicle are with the OPs. Thus, the OPs have committed gross deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice. The Ld. counsel thus pleaded for the acceptance of this complaint and heavy penalty be imposed on OPs.

7.                   OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through Advocate Sh. Harjit Singh. Only memo of appearance was filed by the Ld. counsel. Neither power of attorney or written version or evidence was filed. OP No.4 appeared in person but failed to file written version despite several opportunities. OP No. 5 & 6 failed to turn up but on 21.09.2015, their written version was received through post. They did not appear for evidence or arguments.

8.                   OP No.5 and 6 in a joint written reply stated that relationship between OP 5, 6 and OPs No. 2 & 3 are on principal to principal basis and that they are not responsible for registration of vehicle in question. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs No. 5 and 6 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua them.

9.                   After hearing the Ld. counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submission of the Ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs No.1 to 3 have miserably failed to honour their obligation of getting the vehicle registered even after getting all the payments. They have not bothered to get the needful done even during the pendency of this complaint.

10                  In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and find that OPs No.1 to 3 have committed grave deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, to the complainant by not handing over the RC and returning the original documents to the complainant. Complaint against OPs No.  4 to 6 is hereby dismissed. Hence, we direct OPs No. 1 to 3;

1.  To hand over the original Registration Certificate(RC) and return all the original documents to the complainant within 45 days.
2. To pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony and harassment and for deficiency in service and indulging in unfair trade practice within 45 days, thereafter it shall carry interest @ 9% P.A.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

 The order be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

11                  The arguments on the complaint were heard on 15.06.2016 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: 24.06.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)               President

 

                                                                               (Veena Chahal)                                                                                            Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)             Member