BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 43 of 2017
Date of Institution : 23.02.2017
Date of Decision : 8.2.2018
Subhash Kumar son of Shri Leela Ram, resident of House No.55, Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Authorized person/Managing Director/owner Garg Motors, 9 KM Miles Stone, Near Sikanderpur Chowk, Hisar Road, Sirsa.
2. Mahendra & Mahendra Ltd., Automotive Sector Haridwar, Sector 5, IIE, SIDCUL, Haridwar through its authorized person.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. C/o Garg Motors, 9 KM Miles Stone, Near Sikanderpur Chowk, Hisar Road, Sirsa, through its
4 New India Assurance Building, 87 MG Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 through its authorized person.
5 Mahendra and Mahendra Finance Om building, 1st Floor, The Sirsa Regency Hotel, Dabwali Road, Lal Batti Chowk, Sirsa Haryana.
6 Mahendra & Mahendra Financial Services Ltd. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400001.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Preet Amar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties no.3&4.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties no.5&6.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that the op no.1 is the authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and deals in sale and purchase/exchange of vehicles. The complainant had visited the showroom of the op no.1 on 6.11.2015 for purchasing one new Bolero ZLX BS 4. Dealing hand/sales executive of the op no.1 showed the Bolero ZLX BS 4 Model to the complainant and gave him trial of the same and also gave detailed quotation in this regard to the complainant in his own handwriting after explaining all the features of the vehicle Bolero ZLX BS 4. The complainant being impressed with the trial and features of the vehicle agree to purchase the vehicle Bolero ZLX BS 4 from the op no.1 but as the complainant wanted to purchase the said Bolero ZLX BS 4 through finance facility, therefore, he put his desire before op no.1 at which the op no.1 assured the complainant that the facility of finance and insurance and the delivery of Bolero ZLX BS 4 is available with him and the same can be provided today itself to the complainant, if he wanted. It is further averred that op no.1 disclosed the price of the New Bolero ZLX BS 4 vehicle to be Rs.8,24,041/- including Ex-Showroom price, Logistic Charges, TP number and insurance premium. It is further averred that complainant was the owner of a vehicle Maruti Zen Car and he wanted to adjust the price of the above Zen Car in the sale price of the Bolero ZLX BS 4. He disclosed this fact to op no.1 and the op no.1 became ready to adjust the Zen car for Rs.68000/- in the price of New Bolero BS4 and thus after deducting the price of Zen car at the rate of Rs.68,000/-, the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.7,56,040/- to op no.1 for new Bolero ZLX BS 4. It is further averred that complainant in this manner agreed to purchase the said vehicle Bolero ZLX BS4 from op no.1 for a total sum of Rs.7,56,040/-. The op no.1 had received from the complainant a total sum of Rs.1,93,850/- against three different receipts No.7160 dated 6.11.2015 of Rs.41850/-, 7167 dated 7.11.2015 of Rs.84000/- and 7223 dated 17.11.2015 of Rs.68000/-(amount of old Zen Car). The perusal of these receipts clearly indicates that the op no.1 had sold vehicle Bolero ZLX BS4 to the complainant. The op no.1 got the said vehicle financed for the complainant for the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and also got insured the Bolero ZLX BS4 from the op no.2 vide policy No.14010331150300005633 dated 6.11.2015 and received premium of Rs.38422/- from the complainant. In lieu of providing finance facility, the ops no.1 and 4 obtained blank signed cheques from the complainant and also obtained signatures of the complainant on some other blank papers as security. There further obtained the copy of jamabandi of the land of father of complainant and made the father of the complainant as guarantor. On the same day i.e. 6.11.2015, after fulfilling all the necessary formalities, the op no.1 got issued delivery challan No.11874 dated 6.11.2015 and op no.2 issued insurance cover note. It was further assured by op no.1 that all the relevant documents regarding the vehicle shall be issued to the complainant within a short period. It was further promised by op no.1 that the affidavit with regarding to the purchase of old Zen car shall be issued to the complainant with the other relevant documents. That all the above documents issued by op no.1 on 6.11.2015 show that op no.1 had sold vehicle Bolero ZLX BS4 to the complainant and same vehicle was insured. That later on the complainant received the original sale certificate bearing Invoice No.INV16B000138 dated 14.11.2015, temporary certificate of registration, tax invoice and form 22 from op no.1 through post. But to the surprise of complainant, no affidavit regarding purchase of zen car has been issued to him. That on receipt of the said documents, complainant became stunned to see that the said documents issued by op no.1 are showing the model of vehicle as Model BS III instead of Bolero ZLX BS4. The complainant immediately got checked the vehicle and came to know that op no.1 with a malafide intention and to cheat the complainant fraudulently sold and delivered the BS3 vehicle instead of BS 4 by charging the price of Bolero ZLX BS4 and the ops by hatching a criminal conspiracy also issued forged and fabricated documents of Bolero ZLX BS4 in order to conceal the fraudulent act. It is further averred that ops have charged an amount of Rs.1,93,850/- from the complainant but as per statement of account of finance, they have only shown Rs.1,52,861/- which also makes it clear that ops have committed fraud with the complainant in order to grab a huge amount from him and to cause unlawful loss to him and to gain unlawful benefit. The complainant on enquiry further came to know that the ops in furtherance of their common intention and in order to cheat the complainant forged the signatures of the father of complainant on various documents showing him to be the guarantor in finance. That immediately after coming to know about the fraud committed by the ops, the complainant visited the premises of op no.1 and requested them either to refund the amount charged by them from the complainant or to replace the said BS3 vehicle with BS4 but they did not give any satisfactory reply and kept on avoiding the request of complainant on one false pretext or the other. That the complainant thereafter got sent a registered legal notice on 17.2.2016 to the ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and that the facts as stated in the complaint are of complicated nature and the same cannot be decided without leading the evidence in the proper form and as such complaint involving the complicated question of law and facts cannot be decided summary by this Forum and that complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to bring the present complaint. It is further submitted that complainant has not so far got the vehicle registered with the registration authority and is driving the said bolero without registration illegally and has thus violated the legal provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and is not entitled to any relief and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that complainant had visited the showroom of op no.1 for purchase of a Mahindra Bolero ZLX. The employees of the showroom showed the Bolero ZLX BS4 as well as BS3. However, the complainant selected Bolero ZLX BS3 and the complainant also selected the vehicle of model BS3. The complainant also offered to sell his zen car to the true value of the showroom and the price of the zen car was settled and agreed at Rs.68,000/- The price of BS4 model was Rs.7,77,641/- whereas BS3 model was Rs.7,62,702/-. The complainant also opted to get loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and accordingly applied for the loan with the MMFSL company. The complainant deposited Rs.68,000/- in cash being the price of the Zen car, Rs.41,850/- and Rs.84,000/- cash amount against the purchase of said vehicle, Rs.35,000/- granted as discount to the complainant. An amount of Rs.14,500/- being the advance EMI, Rs.6000/- on account of loan file charges, Rs.7124/- on account of the Mahindra Loan Suraksha Premium and these amounts were deposited with Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services. After adjusting the purchase price, EMI, loan file charges, MLS and the amount received from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services to the tune of Rs.6,50,000/- by way of loan, the answering op delivered the Mahindra Bolero vehicle BS3 and the bill was also issued regarding the vehicle sold to the complainant. It was never declared that the vehicle sold was of BS4 model. The bill is also showing the vehicle to be BS3 model. The answering op also handed over the form 22 regarding the compliance with the pollution standards to the complainant showing the model BS3. However, due to lack of communication between the employees dealing with the paper work and issuance of the bills etc. in the showroom, the price was charged of BS4 model instead of BS3 as sold to the complainant. Later on, answering op came to know regarding the aforesaid mistake and immediately wrote a letter on 27.11.2015 to Subhash Kumar complainant that the answering op is ready to pay the difference amount worth Rs.14,939/-, which were charged excessively due to clerical omissions and mis-understanding between the staff of the showroom. But after receiving this letter, the complainant has started blackmailing the op and made complaints to the different police stations. The complainant is making a bond flash story, as regards the quotation, it is submitted that complainant was never given any quotation by the staff of the showroom as alleged. The grant of loan is by different company which has no concern with the answering op in any way. It is incorrect that complainant was to pay Rs.7,56,040/-. The details of the price and other charges including EMI and insurance was explained to the complainant. It is further submitted that initially an amount of Rs.39,200/- was received as premium of the insurance, but later on an amount of Rs.38,422/- was adjusted and accordingly account was settled by giving a discount of Rs.615/- and the account was settled and made clear to the complainant at the time of issuing the invoice. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite notice sent through registered cover and was proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite parties no.3 and 4 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable against answering ops as there is no deficiency in service in any manner on the part of answering ops/ company or its officials. Insurance policy has been issued by Mahindra & Mahindra company having portion with them by the relevant official posted there, who issued the same on the basis of delivery challan containing description of the vehicle therein, on 6.11.2015. Invoice/ bill for the vehicle has been issued by Garg Motors on 14.11.2015, hence answering ops do not have any concern and connection with respect to actual and factual aspect of delivery of the vehicle, hence present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua answering ops. It is further submitted that present complaint before this Forum is not maintainable, as allegation of fraud and cheating are leveled and this Forum is not empowered to give any finding except the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, if any. That as per Insurance Act, norms, guidelines and law, insurance company is to indemnify the insured for any accident caused by the vehicle (subject to fulfillment of term and conditions of the policy) or damages thereof to the insured vehicle by way of external impact and if any kind of wrong with regard to taking and giving the physical delivery of the vehicle, vehicle shown and given differently, for that insurance company cannot be held liable in any manner and company cannot be burdened with any kind of relief for omission and commission on the part of complainant and ops no.1,2, 5 and 6. It is further submitted that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against answering ops and provisions of Consumer Protection Act are not attracted for taking any cognizance against answering ops merely on the ground that vehicle delivered to complainant was insured with answering ops, more particularly when there are specific allegations of cheating and fraud against Garg Motors & other ops. It is further submitted that no relief can be granted against answering ops, as uptill date complainant never approached answering ops for getting the correction effected n the policy by submitting the registration certificate of vehicle available with him. Complainant/ insured should submit an application alongwith attested copy of RC for getting the particulars of vehicle corrected as per actual and factual record. With these averments, dismissal of complaint qua ops no.3 and 4 has been prayed for.
5. Opposite parties no.5 and 6 in their separate written statement resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction and cause of action. On merits, all the contents of the complaint are denied being not concerned with ops no.5 and 6 and it is also submitted that ops no.5 and 6 financed the Mahindra Bolero ZLX ACPS 2 WD 7 STR through agreement No.3995919 and on the request of consumer/ borrower the above said vehicle insured with New India Insurance Company Limited.
6. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of rough estimate Ex.C1, copy of delivery challan Ex.C2, copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance Ex.C3, copies of receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, copy of sale certificate Ex.C7, copy of form no.15 Ex.C8, copy of form 22 Ex.C9, copy of invoice Ex.C10, copy of letter Ex.C11, copy of statement of account Ex.C12, copy of registered notice Ex.C13, copy of postal receipt Ex.C14, copies of applications moved to Superintendent of Police Ex,C15 and Ex.C16 and copy of price list Ex.C17. On the other hand, ops no.3 and 4 produced affidavit of Sh. K.S. Chaudhary, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex.R1, copy of complaint under Sections 420/467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC Ex.R2, copy of delivery challan Ex.R3, copy of sales certificate Ex.R4, policy schedule Ex.R5 and copy of policy Ex.R6. Op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Basant Garg, Partner Ex.R7, copy of letter dated 27.11.2015 Ex.R8, copy of postal receipt Ex.R9 and copy of ledger account Ex.R10. Ops no.5 and 6 produced affidavit of Sh. Dheeraj Verma, Territory Legal Manager Ex.R11 and copy of execution application Ex.R12.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved on record that the complainant had agreed to purchase Bolero ZLX BS4 vehicle for which he had made payment to op no.1 but however, op no.1 by playing fraud supplied Bolero ZLX BS3 vehicle knowing well that they have received the consideration of Bolero ZLX BS4 and got the same insured from the New India Assurance company. It has also been contended that complainant had paid Rs.1,93,850/- against different receipts which also reflect that complainant had purchased Bolero ZLX BS4. The insurance certificate issued by the insurance company also reflects that the Bolero ZLX BS4 was insured by the insurance company on the basis of sale letter duly issued by op no.1. Learned counsel further contended that op no.1 has tendered certain documents out of which has relied upon Ex.R8 which also shows that they had delivered Bolero ZLX BS3 though they had committed to delivery Bolero ZLX BS4 and they had offered to pay the difference of Rs.14,939/-. This all proves that op no.1 has committed unfair trade practice while supplying Bolero ZLX BS3 vehicle in place of Bolero ZLX BS4. It has also been contended that since the date of supply of the vehicle, same has not been got registered due to defective papers of the vehicle. It has also been contended that complainant has suffered a lot due to non registration of the vehicle as he could not put the same on the road. It has also been contended that since the day of its purchase after expiry of the validity of the temporary registration number, the vehicle is standing idle with the complainant and has suffered financial loss as well as pain, agony and harassment. The complainant is approaching the authorities from pillar to post in order to get relief but however, the op no.1 is adamant not to give replacement of the vehicle nor to give the sufficient papers to get his vehicle registered nor op no.1 has come forward to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant in the hands of op no.1 rather a huge amount of interest has been charged by Mahendra and Mahendra finance without any fault on the part of the complainant though the fault lies on the op no.1 who is authorized dealer of Mahender & Mahendra. Learned counsel for the complainant has also cited authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & anr. Vs. M/s. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners P. Ltd. 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 338 and authority of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as P.C. Wadhwa Vs. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. 2014 (6) Law Herald (P&H 5523.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has contended that no doubt the vehicle Bolero ZLX BS3 was supplied to the complainant though the complainant had deposited the cost of Bolero ZLX BS4 and moment they came to know about their mistake, they made offer to make refund of the amount vide their letter Ex.R8 but however, the complainant did not come forward to receive amount and to settle the dispute. The vehicle is standing idle due to his own wrongs and lapses of the complainant himself and not due to op no.1. The amount paid by the complainant was duly adjusted and explained to the complainant against the cost of the vehicle and further no excess amount was charged by op no.1 except the amount mentioned in Ex.R8. It has also been contended that present complaint is not maintainable against ops as there is assertion of cheating and fraud and further more, the complainant has already lodged criminal complaint against the op no.1 which is pending trial and the remedy lies to the complainant only before the Civil Court and not before the Consumer Forum.
10. Learned counsel for ops no.3 and 4 has contended that present complaint is not maintainable against ops no.3 and 4 and same is liable to be dismissed. There are allegations of fraud and cheating which debar this Forum to give any finding except the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, if any. Further, no cause of action has accrued against the ops no.3 and 4 as they issued insurance certificate on the basis of documents and sale certificate supplied by op no.1 and complainant never objected to that nor he has ever lodged any protest against ops no.3 and 4. Copy of legal notice placed on file by complainant himself shows that it was served only upon no.1 and not to other ops including ops no.3 and 4 since he was well aware of the fact that ops no.3 and 4 are not at fault from any corner.
11. Learned counsel for ops no.5 and 6 has contended that present complaint is not maintainable against them and same is liable to be dismissed since this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. It has also been contended that complainant had raised loan from ops no.5 and 6 and had executed an agreement. The complainant is bound by terms and conditions of the loan agreement and cannot escape from his liability to repay the loan amount alongwith interest and all other incidental charges in the garb of present complaint or against the alleged allegations made against op no.1.
12. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as judgments relied upon by learned counsel for complainant.
13. It is proved fact on record that complainant had approached the opposite party no.1 for supply of Bolero ZLX BS4 vehicle for which he had made the entire sale consideration to op no.1 i.e. he paid Rs.1,93,850/- as detailed in the complaint and also remained amount was paid by raising loan from ops no.5 and 6. It is also proved fact that vehicle Bolero ZLX BS3 was supplied to the complainant though he had paid towards costs of BS4 as this fact is evident from Ex.R8 by which op no.1 had offered to refund amount of Rs.14,939/- i.e. difference of the cost. It is further proved fact on record that vehicle was insured with ops no.3 and 4 as Bolero ZLX BS4 for a period of one year i.e. from 6.11.2015 to 5.11.2016 and premium was paid against the vehicle mark as BS4 though vehicle supplied to the complainant was Bolero ZLX BS3 meaning thereby the vehicle which was supplied to the complainant was not insured with ops no.3 and 4 despite the fact that he has paid the insurance premium to ops no.3 and 4 and policy issued by ops no.3 and 4 has already expired without any benefit of coverage of the insurance of the vehicle during this period.
14. Secondly, it is also proved fact on record that op no.1 issued form no.21 and 22 by which the make of the vehicle was mentioned as Bolero ZLX BS3, however, since the complainant has purchased the vehicle Bolero ZLX BS4 as a result of which he could not get the vehicle registered for such a long period as a result of which he could not ply the vehicle due to non registration of the vehicle. It is undisputed fact that while parking his vehicle as idle for such a long time, the complainant has suffered a lot and he had no option except to park his vehicle as same was not registered due to the fact that proper documents were not issued by op no.1 due to reason best known to them but however, it is proved fact that he had been approaching time and again to op no.1 either to replace the vehicle or to get the same registered by modifying the documents which are required for the registration of the vehicle.
15. The perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that complainant has deposed qua each and every facts and the problems which he has faced while getting this vehicle and in his affidavit Ex.CW1/A has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint as well as specifically deposed qua supply of Bolero ZLX BS3 in place of BS4 and also deposed regarding payment of premium of Rs.38422/- for the insurance of the vehicle and has also relied upon documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17. The perusal of the evidence of op no.1 reveals that Sh. Basant Garg, Partner of M/s Garg Motors has furnished affidavit Ex.R7 in which he has deposed that complainant has not so far got the vehicle registered with the registration authority and is driving the said vehicle without registration illegally and thus has violated the legal provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. He has further deposed that complainant selected Bolero ZLX BS3 and the same was supplied to him and the complainant also offered to sell his zen car to the true value of the showroom and the price of the zen car was settled and agreed at Rs.68,000/-, the price of BS 4 model was Rs.7,77,641/- whereas the price of BS 3 model was Rs.7,62,702/-. The complainant also opted to get a loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and accordingly applied for the loan. In this way, he paid Rs.68,000/- in cash being the price of Zen car, Rs.41,850/- and Rs.84,000/- cash amount against the purchase of said vehicle, and Rs.35,000/- were granted as discount to the complainant. An amount of Rs.14,500/- being the advance EMI, Rs.6000/- on account of loan file charges, Rs.7124/- on account of the Mahindra Loan Suraksha Premium and these amounts were deposited with Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services. But at the same time, he has also deposed that lateron, op no.1 came to know regarding their mistake and immediately they wrote a letter on 27.11.2015 to complainant that answering op is ready to pay the difference amount worth Rs.14,939/- which were charged excessively due to clerical omissions and mis-understanding between the staff of the showroom. So, there remains no doubt qua the fact that complainant had agreed to purchase Bolero ZLX BS4 for which he paid the cost but however he was supplied Bolero ZLX BS3. It is further proved fact on record that op no.1 supplied the Bolero ZLX BS3 though the complainant never paid for Bolero ZLX BS3 nor he agreed to purchase Bolero ZLX BS3. So, supplying of this Bolero ZLX BS3 after receiving payment of Bolero ZLX BS4 clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of op no.1 for which op no.1 is liable to compensate the complainant.
16. It is also proved fact on record that op no.1 got the vehicle insured from ops no.3 and 4 on the basis of their sale certificate and there was insurance coverage of the vehicle Bolero ZLX BS4 though said vehicle was never supplied to the complainant rather vehicle Bolero ZLS BS3 was supplied to the complainant which was never insured by ops no.3 and 4 despite receiving the premium amounting to Rs.38422/- from the complainant for the period 6.11.2015 to 5.11.2016 which was charged by op no.1 on behalf of insurance company. Since it is proved on record that vehicle which was supplied to the complainant was never insured by ops no.3 and 4 for the period 6.11.2015 to 5.11.2016, as such it is legal obligation of ops no.3 and 4 to issue a fresh insurance policy for one year of the vehicle which had been supplied to the complainant without any charges based on fresh documents which shall be supplied by op no.1 qua the vehicle which is in possession of the complainant.
17. Though, there are allegations in the complaint against ops no.5 and 6 who are financer who had financed the vehicle of the complainant and complainant had executed loan agreement while raising loan from ops no.5 and 6 though there was any dispute between the complainant and op no.1 qua supply of the vehicle but however the complainant has never denied in his complaint or in the affidavit furnished by him that he never raised loan from ops no.5 and 6 rather it appears from the averments of the complaint as well as affidavit of complainant that it was legal obligation of the complainant to repay loan as per repayment schedule and as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement if he has not complied with those terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Ops no.5 and 6 shall be at liberty to proceed against the complainant in accordance with law as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. So, complaint against ops no.5 and 6 does not appear to be maintainable and same is hereby dismissed.
18. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 to 4 and direct the opposite party no.1 to issue the fresh modified documents of the vehicle which has been supplied to the complainant and also get his vehicle registered at their own costs except the amount of original tax which was the liability of the complainant to deposit within two months from the receipt of copy of this order and the cost of the penalty and other charges except original amount of tax shall be borne by op no.1 and complainant shall pay the original amount of tax and registration charges etc. Op no.1 is further directed to get the vehicle of the complainant insured from ops no.3 and 4 from the date of issuance of fresh documents for a further period of one year without any charges and also directed to make refund of the difference of amount of Rs.14,939/- to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and pain and suffering which complainant has suffered at the hands of op no.1. Op no.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. OP no.1 is also directed to issue affidavit of Zen car to the complainant. In case op no.1 fails to comply with the orders, the op no.1 shall be liable to pay Rs.200/- per day as penalty to the complainant for not getting his vehicle registered and supplying the requisite documents on the basis of which vehicle is to be registered. The complainant is directed to execute all the requisite documents and supply copy of the requisite papers which are required by op no.1 for registration of the vehicle. OP no.1 is further directed to serve a seven days prior notice to the complainant regarding requirements of documents which are to be supplied by complainant and executed by complainant for the purpose of registration of vehicle. Ops no.3 and 4 are also directed to issue fresh policy of the vehicle of the complainant. The ops no.3 and 4 are directed to comply with this order within a period of two months as mentioned above. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:8.2.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
