DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No.CC/15/139 of 8.7.2015

                                      Decided on:        5.1.2016

Vaneesh Suri age 29 years s/o Mr.Gulshan Suri R/o H.No.101-B,Mohindra Complex, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Goyal Automobiles, Ashirwad Complex, Village Chamarhedi, Rajpura Road, Bahadurgarh,Patiala through its Proprietor.

                                                                   …………….Op

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member           

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Mayank Malhotra,Advocate,proxy counsel for

                                        Sh.Surinder Gera, counsel for the complainant.

For Op:                           Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate            

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased the car make Hyundai i20 Sportz CRDI BSV bearing chassis No.MALBB51RLDM600216 and engine No.D4FCDU308110 from the Op for Rs.7,37,141/-. The original bill was not handed over by the Op to the complainant and who flatly refused to handover the same to the complainant. The complainant has attached the copy of the bill with the complaint.
2. It is further averred that on 10.10.2013, the Op had provided the temporary certificate of registration No.PB-11-ZC(T)9907 valid for 10.10.2013 to 9.11.2013.The vehicle was also got insured under the instructions of the Op on the same day from Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd having deposited the premium of Rs.20,855/- for the period 10.10.2013 to 9.10.2014.
3. It is further averred by the complainant that he was obliged to get the vehicle permanently registered with the office of the District Transport Officer before expiry of the temporary certificate of registration  and for that sake he approached the Op so as to issue him the original bill but the Op was adamant in getting the vehicle registered of its own and asked the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.76000/- .At this the complainant asked for the detail of the said amount but the Op failed to provide him the same. The complainant refused to deposit the amount with the Op in the absence of the detail.
4. Then the complainant applied the office of the DTO, Patiala for registration of the vehicle alongwith the documents such as form 20 i.e. application for registration, photo copy of the bill, photo copy of insurance cover, temporary certificate of registration, the vehicle enquiry report from National Crime Records Bureau through SSP, Patiala and request for allotment of fancy number etc. but the registration of the vehicle was refused under the  objection raised to the complainant so as to present the original bill and the office of the DTO demanded a sum of Rs.60,900/-, the fee for the registration of the vehicle within the stipulated period.
5. At this the complainant approached the Op and again asked for the original bill but who made a refusal and rather compelled the complainant to get the vehicle registered through it. The complainant again asked for the detail of the amount of Rs.76000/- but the same was not provided to him.
6. The act of the Op in not having provided him the original bill is said to be a deficiency in service as also an unfair trade practice. He has suffered a loss in a sum of Rs.3lac per annum in his business. The complainant demanded the original bill from the Op vide letter dated 5.6.2015 sent through registered post but the Op failed to provide the same. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to pay him Rs.5lac by way of loss suffered by him in the business; to pay him Rs.one lac by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.11000/-towards the costs of the complaint and further to restrain it from demanding Rs.76000/- towards the registration of the vehicle.
7. On notice, the Op appeared and filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objection; interalia , that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint and that the complaint being false and frivolous and the same to have been brought to the harassment of the Op is liable to be dismissed with special costs of Rs.one lac.
8. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted by the Op that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the Op on 10.10.2013 for Rs.7,37,141/-.The complainant had approached the Op through some known person and he made the payment of Rs.one lac on 10.10.2013 and when the possession of the car was delivered to him as a gesture of goodwill and believing the complainant that he will pay the balance amount soon. He made the payment of Rs.6,20,000/- on 22.10.2013. A sum of Rs.17,141/- remained balance towards the price of the car, Rs.20.8555/- towards insurance charges and Rs.5000/- towards logistic charges, for  temporary certificate of registration and charges for temporary number plates, in all Rs.42,996/- .The complainant failed to pay the same despite repeated requests made personally and through telephone.
9. It is denied by the Op that it had not delivered the original bill to the complainant or that the Op refused to hand over the same.
10. It is further averred that under the instructions and as per the notification issued by the State Govt., the vehicle has to be got registered with the office of the DTO by the dealer of the company selling the vehicle and the dealer has to submit the file to the DTO and therefore, the original bill was kept by the Op. The Op had informed the complainant for submitting the file of the RC through its executive telephonically and even through registered letter dated 29.8.2014 and 13.10.2014, a fact withheld by the complainant intentionally.
11. It is denied that the complainant was obliged to get the vehicle registered permanently with the office of the DTO before the expiry of the temporary certificate of registration i.e. before 9.10.2014 or that the complainant approached the Op to get the original bill or that the Op was adamant in getting the vehicle registered at its own and asked the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.76000/-.It is also denied that the complainant had asked for the detail of the said amount and the Op failed to provide the same.
12. It is denied that the complainant had then applied for the registration of the vehicle with the office of the DTO, Patiala alongwith documents and that the registration of the vehicle was refused under the objection that the complainant had to present the original bill and he was also demanded of Rs.60,900/-towards the fee for the registration of the vehicle. It is denied that the complainant had again approached the Op and demanded the original bill and the Op refused to handover the same. It is again denied that the complainant asked for the detail of Rs.76000/- and the same was not provided to him.
13. It is denied that the complainant has suffered any loss in his business to the extent of Rs.3lac per annum. The Op has controverted all other allegations going against it and ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
14. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C8 and his counsel closed the evidence.
15. On the other hand on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Sanjay Garg, Authorized signatory of the Op alongwith the documents, Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed its evidence.
16. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the proxy counsel for the complainant, counsel for the Op and gone through the evidence on record.
17. The complainant has approached this Forum seeking a direction to the Op to provide him the original bill and further to award him the compensation in a sum of Rs.5lacs on account of loss suffered in the business and further to award a sum of Rs.one lac by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him.
18. On the other hand, the plea taken up by the Op is that the original bill of the complainant was retained by the op as under the instructions and the notification issued by the State Govt. the vehicle has to be got registered by the dealer having sold the vehicle. It is also the plea taken up by the Op that as against the price of Rs.7,37,141/- , the complainant paid a sum of Rs. one lac on 10.10.2013 and Rs.6,20,000/- on 28.10.2013, thereby leaving a balance of  Rs.17,141/-. The complainant had also to pay the amount of Rs.20,155/- towards the insurance premium  and Rs.5000/- towards logistic charges, the temporary certificate of registration and charges for number plates and thus the complainant was liable to pay in all a sum of Rs.42,996/- to the Op.
19. The Op has not produced any instructions or any notification to have been issued by the State Govt. under which a dealer of a vehicle is obliged to get the vehicle registered with the Motor Vehicle(Registering)Authority. Here, it is important to note that it is very much averred by the complainant that when the Op failed to supply him the original bill he had applied the District Transport Officer, Patiala for the registration of the vehicle alongwith all the documents but the registration of the vehicle was refused on the ground that the complainant had to produce the original bill and the Motor Vehicle (Registering)Authority demanded a sum of Rs.60,900/- fee for the registration of the vehicle. In this regard, the complainant has produced in evidence Ex.C6, the application to have been moved by him before the Motor Vehicle(Registering) Authority, Patiala and on which an endorsement is made by the Motor Vehicle(Registering)Authority. The endorsement reads “that the bill be issued”. No doubt the said endorsement is not authentic and the same is not got proved by the complainant by tendering in evidence the affidavit of the concerned official/officer who made the endorsement on the said application.
20. It was for the Op to have produced the instructions/notification to have been issued by the State Govt which makes it mandatory for a dealer to register the vehicle with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and that the owner of the vehicle cannot get the same registered with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority directly, in the absence of which we are not ready  to accept the plea taken up by the Op in this regard.
21. It appears that the Op has not provided the original bill to the complainant because the Op claims the complainant to be in arrears of Rs.42,996/- payable to the Op and thus the Op withheld the original bill so as to arm twist the complainant in the matter of making the payment. The Op has not produced in evidence any document consisting of any ledger to have been maintained by it showing the payments made by the complainant and the amount still due and payable by the complainant. After all the Op is a big business concern dealing in the sale of the vehicles of a reputed manufacturer namely Hyundai and therefore, it is expected of it to maintain the account books but no record is produced by the Op to show that the complainant was due to pay a sum of Rs.42,996/- in connection with the sale of the car make Hyundai i20 Sportz.
22. In case the Op realized that the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.42,996/- to it, it can seek the recovery from the complainant in due process of law  but it could not withhold the original bill regarding the sale of the vehicle, the possession of which has already been made to the complainant and therefore, the withholding of the original bill tantamounts to an unfair trade practice and further the failure on the part of the Op to hand over the original bill despite the complainant having got the Op served with the letter Ex.C7 dated 5.6.2015 which was posted on 9.6.2015 as would appear from Ex.C8, the postal receipt, amounts to a deficiency in service. We therefore, accept the complaint and direct to Op to hand over the original bill of the vehicle in question to the complainant within 10 days on receipt of the certified copy of the order. We can well imagine the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant on account of non supply of the original bill of the vehicle purchased by him from the Op because since from the date of the purchase i.e. 10.10.2013 he is running the risk of being challaned under the Motor Vehicles Act by way of plying the car without certificate of registration and therefore, we award the complainant with a compensation in a sum of Rs.75000/-  which is inclusive of the costs of the complaint, to be paid by the Op to the complainant within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order. No independent evidence has been lead by the complainant that he has suffered any loss in business because of the non registration of his vehicle and therefore, no relief on that count can be granted.

Pronounced

Dated: 5.1.2016.

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President