BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.174 of 2019

Date of Instt. 20.05.2019

Date of Decision:30.06.2022

Sh. Sarabjit Singh S/o Pal Singh R/o H. No.585, Qilla Mohalla Talwan Sub Tehsil Noormahal Tehsil Phillaur District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Grover Hyundai, Grover Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Dhandari Kalan Railway Station G. T. Road Ludhiana through its Managing Director.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh.Anand Pandit, Adv. & Sh. Gurvinder Arora, Adv.                       Counsels for the Complainant.

                   Sh. T. K. Badhan, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased on I20 Asta (o) CRDi Car bearing No.PB08-DX-3360 from OP vide invoice No.673 dated 25.12.2017 worth Rs.8,52,307/-. The OP had taken the registration fee for the purpose of issuance of RC by the office of District Transport Office, Jalandhar. OP had made representation to the complainant that the RC of the vehicle will be given to the complainant within one month from the purchase of the vehicle. More than a year has been elapsed but the registration certificate of the vehicle has not been given to the complainant due to which the complainant is unable to ply the vehicle and the huge amount has been spent by him on the purchase of the vehicle and even he is paying installment to the HDFC Bank from whom the vehicle was got financed. No doubt the above said act on the part of the OP tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OP was duty bound to provide the RC to the complainant as per the representation made by the OP to the complainant that the RC will be provided to the complainant within one month from the purchase of the vehicle but OP has failed to do so despite various requests made by the complainant. The complainant is unable to drive the vehicle on account of fear of challan under Motor Vehicle Act and even otherwise, it is not viable to drive the car without proper documents/RC. The complainant has suffered huge loss and the loss is not less than Rs.10,00,000/- which include the price of the car which he has spent and the same is without any use and beside this the complainant has suffered mental agony, inconvenience, financial loss, harassment on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of mental tension, sufferings, harassment and financial loss etc.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as such the complainant has concealed and suppressed the true and material facts from this Commission and hence he is not entitled to get any relief. It is further averred that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and to claim the relief. On merits, the factum with regard to taking registration fee from the complainant for the RC of the vehicle is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                It is admitted by the OP that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the OP and the fee for RC was taken by the OP. The complainant has alleged that more than a year has elapsed, but the RC of the vehicle has not been given to the complainant despite the number of requests made by the complainant. Due to this, the complainant is unable to ply the vehicle. The complainant has suffered inconvenience, mental agony and harassment on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.                The OP has alleged that the OP had not adopted any unfair trade practice nor there is any deficiency in service as the OP had submitted the Tax to the RTA on 25.12.2017 and on the same day, had made scanning fee to the concerned department. Provisional registration certificate was also got issued by the OP in favour of the complainant on the same day. It has been alleged by the OP that the delay has not been caused due to the fault of the OP rather it was caused due to the system of RTA department. It had taken time to register the same. The system of the Vahan 4 was not updated and after the completion of the updation of system Vahan 4, the RTA department had started to allot the number of vehicles randomly and the RC has been received from the RTA Department by the OPs, but it is the complainant who has not turned up to collect the RC. Thus, no deficiency of service has been proved.

8.                Ex.C-1 is the Provisional Registration Certificate, which was issued by the OP to the complainant on 25.12.2017. The invoice showing the purchase of the vehicle as per Ex.C-2, copy of the bank receipt has been proved as Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 is copy of the insurance policy, Ex.C-5 is the copy of the invoice summary. The OPs have proved on record the receipt of payment of tax to the Motor Vehicles Department Ex.R-1, Ex.R-2 is the receipt of the society fee, Ex.R-3 is the detail of registration certificate provided by the OP to the RTA Department, Ex.R-4 has been proved as application for registration of the vehicle of the complainant and the copies of Form-21 and Form-22 has been proved as Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6. Ex.R-7 is the Disclaimer and Ex.R-8 is the Provisional Registration Certificate, which has been proved as Ex.C-1 also.

9.                From the documentary evidence and oral evidence led by both the parties, it is proved that the complainant has purchased the vehicle I20 Asta (o) CRDi Car from the OP and the OP applied for registration certificate of the vehicle to the RTA department after receiving the fee from the complainant. As per the OP, the same was applied in the year 2018 and the RC has been received by the OP, but no copy of RC issued by the RTA department has been filed on record by the OP. No document has been filed on record by the OP to show that the complainant has been asked number of times to take the RC, but it is the complainant who is not taking the RC from the OP. It is the duty of the OP to get the RC issued to the purchaser, whosoever purchases vehicle from the agency. The agency is meant to provide the services to the customers. The vehicle was purchased in the year 2017 and the present complaint was filed in the year 2019. The OP is unable to provide the RC to the complainant even till today, which is clear cut deficiency in service. Till today, the complainant has not received the RC from the OP, which has allegedly been received by the OPs as per their written statement and this is unfair trade practice and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

10.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to provide the RC of the vehicle to the complainant and further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7000/- to the complainant on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

30.06.2022         Member                          Member      President