BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2015
Date of institution: 04.02.2015
Date of Decision: 23.07.2015
Ms. Karuna Babber d/o Sh. A.D. Bubber r/o House No.866, Phase-4, Sector 59, Mohali
……..Complainant
Versus
Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,B-51, Opp. Verka Milk Plant, Indl. Area, Phase-VI, Mohali through Shri Deepak Kapoor, Head Sales.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
ARGUMENTS HEARD AND ORDER BY THE CORAM
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri A.D. Babbar, father and authorized representative of the complainant.
Shri Ashutosh Aggarwal, counsel for the OP.
(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER)
ORDER
The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that she purchased a Toyota ETIOS car from the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) on 25.09.2014 by making full payment of Rs.6,81,906/- which includes registration charges of Rs.35,081/- on the promise by the OP that registration certificate shall be delivered to her by 02.10.2014, whereafter complainant keep on enquiring about her registration but the OP did not give any satisfactory reply. However, the OP informed the complainant vide letter dated 08.10.2014 that as per recent decision taken by the Punjab Govt. Motor Vehicles Tax has been hiked from 6% to 8% with immediate effect dated 07.10.2014 and asked the complainant to deposit full/balance tax amount as per 8% so that the OP may apply for registration certificate of the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant alleges that it shows that the OP failed to deposit the tax with the department upto 08.10.2014 whereas the OP has collected the entire amount from the complainant on 25.09.2014. The complainant made various enquiries and requests to the OP including a letter dated 05.11.2014 posted by speed post on 17.11.2014 to the OP requesting to handover the registration certificate to the complainant but the OP did not respond to it. Then the complainant was left with no alternative, but to submit to the coercive attitude of the OP and had to shell out 50% hike of tax i.e. Rs.4800/- to the OP vide company’s receipt No.4101 dated 21.11.2014 so as to get the registration certificate from the OP in order to be able to ply the vehicle on road with registration certificate. Ultimately after several reminders and requests the registration certificate was made available to her on 11.01.2015 i.e. after a delay of about two months from the date of payment of 50% hike and delay of about 3 months from the date of full payment of registration charges. The OP failed in its promised duty to deposit the tax in time and deliver the registration certificate to the complainant well in time which resulted in harassment and inconvenience as she could not drive the vehicle on road in the absence of valid registration certificate and forced her to pay the hike in tax of Rs.4800/-. Lastly the complainant requested this Forum to grant following relief to her:
- to refund amount of Rs.4800/- illegally collected by the OP.
(b) adequate and suitable compensation on account of:
(i) mental agony and harassment ;
(ii) non plying the vehicle on road for three months even after full payment of the car.
(iii) non responsive and irresponsible attitude of the OP towards the complainant.
(c) any other relief this Forum may deem fit in the matter.
2. After the service of notice upon the OP, OP appeared through counsel and filed its written version taking preliminary objections denying all the allegations; deficiency in service; irresponsible act; unfair trade practice; cause of action; maintainability. The OP further submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being a false and frivolous complaint. The OP submitted that it being the facilitator to provide RC made its best efforts to apply for the registration certificate but the official site on which the same was to be applied was blocked by the State Govt. since the State Govt. was in the process of revising the tax slabs. Punjab Govt. has hiked the Motor Vehicles Tax from 6% to 8%. The complainant agreed to it and requested to the OP to bear half burden due to hike in tax liability. As a goodwill gesture, the OP paid half amount. Therefore, the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct to claim any amount in the present complaint. On merits also, the OP denied all the allegations made against it by the complainant and lastly prayed to this Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-7.
4. Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Anoop Gupta its authorized person Ex.OP-1/1 & copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-4.
5. We have heard the authorised person of the complainant and learned counsel for the OP have also gone through the written arguments filed by them.
6. In the present complaint the complainant has made a deal with the OP for the purchase of the car as well as service of providing registration certificate to her for consideration. There she is a consumer and the OP is a seller as well as service provider to her. Further objection of the OP that service of providing registration certificate does not fall within the definition of ‘complainant’ is not sustainable because deal has to be viewed as a whole and not in parts. In the present complaint the OP is service provider qua complainant for providing registration certificate to her in addition to sale of car. The present complaint falls within the definition of the complaint as defined in Section 2 (1) (c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended uptodate. Further the OP submitted that there is no willful delay on its part but delay is caused due to act and conduct of Punjab Govt. and its employees. We observed from the complaint that the complainant has paid the entire amount on 25.09.2014 but hike in Motor Vehicles Tax from 6% to 8% is made by the Punjab Govt. on 07.10.2014. If the OP has deposited the amount in time i.e. 06.10.2014 then this hike would have not effected the complainant. Further the OP has neither placed on record any document nor any proof that it is pursuing the matter with the employees of the Punjab Govt. Even if there is deficiency on the part of the Punjab Govt. then also the OP has cause of action against Punjab Govt. but the OP cannot make good his loss from the complainant. Moreover, deal was struck between the complainant and the OP on 25.09.2014 and it is binding upon them and subsequent hike in Motor Vehicle Tax will not effect the consumer. So it is clear that OP collected the entire amount on 25.09.2014 but did not deposit with the Punjab Govt. till 06.10.2014. Punjab Govt. hiked the rate from 6% to 8% on 07.10.2014 with immediate effect. So the OP has to bear the hiked tax amount because the consumer has paid the entire amount to the OP on 25.09.2014. Thus delay in depositing the complainant’s amount with the Punjab Govt. by the OP is a deficiency in service. Further the OP instead of bearing the hiked amount of Rs.9600.00 compelled the consumer to bear the half amount i.e. Rs.4800/- which is an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Further OP remained negligent to resolve the issue of the complainant. Hence complainant is entitled to compensation also. The complainant has purchased a new car but could not enjoy it due to deficiency and negligence of the OP.
7. In view of the above mentioned discussion the OP is directed to:
(a) refund to the complainant Rs.4,800/ (Rs. Four thousand eight hundred only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt till its actual realisation.
- To pay to the complainant Rs.4,000/- (Rs. Four thousand only) for mental agony and harassment.
(c) to pay to the complainant Rs.4,000/- (Rs. Four thousand only) for non ply of the vehicle on road even after full payment of it.
(d) to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of litigation expenses.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
July 23, 2015.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
