DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.578 of 2015

                                                Date of institution:  23.10.2015                                         Date of decision   :  20.03.2017

Kulwinder Singh son of Labh Singh resident of House No.343, Ward No.7, Kurali, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

                                  ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Sales Manager, Globe Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., B-51, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali.

2.     Managing Director, Globe Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., B-51, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali.

3.     Toyata Financial Service India Ltd., C/o Globe Auto Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., B-51, Industrial Area, Phase-6, Mohali

                                                      ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Vijay Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Ashutosh Aggarwal, counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

                OP No.3 ex-parte

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Kulwinder Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant purchased a car from the OPs by paying Rs.8,14,000/- i.e. Rs.7,36,000/- sale price of the car and the remaining amount for completion of documents, insurance and other expenses. OP No.1 informed the complainant after few days that the documents for registration of the car have been submitted to the DTO Office, Mohali. The complainant when again approached the OPs after six months, he was informed that the Govt. has increased taxes on registration certificates and due to this they did not prepare RC of the car. The complainant demanded the documents which the OPs have submitted to the DTO Mohali but the OPs refused to return those documents. The complainant also inquired from the office of DTO, Mohali from where he came to know that no document for registration of the car was received by the DTO, Mohali. At the time of purchase of car, after receiving all the charges from the complainant and completion of all the formalities, the OPs issued a temporary number of the car i.e. PB-65-XT-3186.  Due to non preparation of the RC by the OPs, the complainant is unable to use the vehicle for his convenience. Till date the OPs have not prepared the RC of the vehicle in question. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to  prepare the RC of the car of the complainant; to pay to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation/damages for harassment and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annul till realisation.

3.             OP No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement in which they have taken preliminary objection that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against these OPs. The complainant is not a consumer as the OPs have acted as a mere facilitator to assist the complainant to get his vehicle registered. The OPs does not deals in the business of getting the permanent RCs of the vehicles against any consideration. The complainant purchased the vehicle on 13.08.2014 and the same was delivered to him with Temporary Registration Certificate which was valid for a period of one month. At that time the complainant specifically requested the representative of these OPs that he wants a special number of new series and will himself get the formalities completed at the appropriate time to get the number of his choice and assured to visit again for completing the requisite formalities. The complainant thereafter did not visit the OPs for completion of requisite formalities. However, the complainant got his vehicle serviced on 22.08.2014 but despite request of the OPs he failed to complete the documentation work for permanent registration of the vehicle. During the intervening period the State Govt. revised the taxation rate for permanent RCs from 6% to 8% and the OPs apprised of the same to the complainant through their registered letter dated 08.10.2014 but inspite of this the complainant failed to do so. The complainant was also requested telephonically to complete the documentation work. The complainant also got the vehicle serviced on 22.12.2014 at 10,000 KMs. At that time also the complainant was requested to do the needful and deposit the revised fee but he did not give any reply and used abusive language. The OPs vide letter dated 11.02.2015 requested the complainant to approach their dealership and get the formalities completed but the complainant did not respond. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, OP No.1 and 2 have sought dismissal of the complaint against them.

4.             Shri S.R. Bansal, Advocate appeared on 22.03.2016 and filed memo of appearance on behalf of OP No.3 and the case was adjourned to 29.03.2016. On 29.03.2016 neither the power of attorney nor reply was filed on behalf of OP No.3. Therefore, the complaint was ordered to be proceeded further against OP No.3 vide order dated 29.03.2016.

5.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1;  copies of payment receipt Ex.C-1; tax invoice Ex.C-2; order booking form Ex.C-3; temporary registration number Ex.C-4; commitment check list Ex.C-5; loan agreement Ex.C-6; detail of payment of loan Ex.C-7; certificate of insurance Ex.C-8; delivery note Ex.C-9 and certificate of insurance policy Ex.C-10.  In rebuttal,  OP  No.1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit Anoop Gupta, their authorised representative Ex.OP-1/1;  affidavit of Deepak Kapoor Head Sales of the OPs Ex.OP-1/2; copies of memorandum of association and article of association Ex.OP-1; letter dated 08.10.2014 alongwith postal receipt Ex.OP-2; service history report Ex.Op-3; letter dated 11.02.2015 alongwith postal receipt Ex.OP-4.

6.             It has been argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the despite receipt of necessary charges, OP No.1 and 2 have not got prepared the RC of the vehicle of the complainant thus depriving him of use of the vehicle for his convenience. Learned counsel has further argued that when the complainant approached the OP No.1 and 2 for the RC, the OPs informed that the RC could not be prepared as the State Govt. had revised the taxation rate from 6% to 8%. Thus, due to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 the complainant is forced to file the present complaint.

7.             On the other hand learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 has argued that the complainant had taken the delivery of the vehicle by stating that he wants a special number of special series and assured to complete the documentation work at a later stage. However, thereafter the complainant did not visit the OPs inspite of repeated letters issued in this regard. But during all this period, the complainant got the vehicle serviced from the OPs regularlly. The complainant was duly informed that the State Govt. had increased the taxation rate from 6% to 8% but inspite of that he cared not to complete the documentation work for getting the vehicle registered with the registration authority. Thus, as per counsel for OP No.1 and 2, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

8.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard their oral submissions. The delivery of the vehicle in question was taken over by the complainant on 13.08.2014. The complainant has not been able to produce any document to show that the OP No.1 and 2 have received from him the charges for getting his vehicle registered with the registration authority. It is the only bald assertion of the complainant that he paid the charges to the OP No.1 and 2 for registration of his vehicle. On the other hand, OP No.1 and 2 have proved by placing on record the letter dated 08.10.2014 Ex.OP-2 and letter dated 11.02.2015 Ex.OP-4 that they had been requesting the complainant to deposit the tax amount and to complete the documentation work so that the vehicle can be got registered by them with the registration authority.  Despite issuance of these letters, the complainant failed to complete the necessary documentation done with the OPs leaving the OPs unable to get the RC of the vehicle prepared. Even at the time of getting the service done from the OPs on 22.08.2014 and 22.12.2014, the OP No.1 and 2 requested the complainant to do the needful for registration of the vehicle but the complainant did not bother to complete the documentation work. Hence, we find there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 as it is the complainant who did not provide the requisite documents to OP No.1 and 2.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find that the complainant is failed to prove his case against the OPs. Hence the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 07.03.2017 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: 20.03.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member