Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/70/2015

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurdev Honda & another - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.D.S.Mangat

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                         Consumer Complaint No.70 of 2015

                                                                Date of institution: 04.08.2015                          

                                                              Date of decision   : 18.01.2017

Mandeep Singh aged about 31 years, son of Netar Singh, resident of village Rouni Khurd, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Roopnagar.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Gurdev Honda, having its office at Chandigarh Ludhiana Road, Khamano, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its proprietor/owner/ partner.
2. Platinum Automobiles, having its office at opposite Grain Market, G.T.Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana through its proprietor/owner/partner.

 

 …..Opposite parties       

Complaint under Sections 11, 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986

Quorum

 

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member           

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

         

Present :      Sh. Rana J.B. Singh, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                   Sh. H.S.Bhutta, Adv.Cl. for OP No.1

                   OP No.2 exparte.

 

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                Complainant, Mandeep Singh aged about 31 years, son of Netar Singh, resident of village Rouni Khurd, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Roopnagar, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11,12 & 14  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.              The complainant purchased one Activa two wheeler of white colour from OP No.1 on 08.10.2014 and the same was delivered to the complainant vide challan No.212 dated 08.10.2014, which was got signed by the complainant.  OP No.1 also handed over the insurance and temporary certificate bearing No. PB-10-ET(Temp-2014)8539 to the complainant.  The complainant paid the registration fee to OP No.1 on the same day and also supplied identity proof of his residence.  As per new rules of Transport Department, the vehicle is to be registered through the selling agency only. The selling agency is duty bound to hand over the registration certificate to the owner of the vehicle. The complainant so many times visited the office of the OP No.2 for taking the registration certificate but it started delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. After various visits and request, OP No.1 supplied photocopy of registration certificate receipt and registration detail. The complainant was shocked to know that OP No.1 applied for registration certificate of the said vehicle from D.T.O. Fatehgarh Sahib, instead of D.T.O. Roopnagar inspite of the requisite documents supplied by the complainant to OP No.1. All the receipts of registration certificate have been issued by OP No.2.  The complainant is unable to drive/use the said vehicle due to non-supply of registration certificate.  It was also shocked that the colour of the said Activa has been mentioned as Black instead of White. When the complainant informed about the said defects to OP No.1, the concerned officials of OP No.1 assured the complainant that the colour in the registration certificate will be correctly mentioned as white and also assured that they will apply the registration number from D.T.O. Roopnagar. But when the complainant received the registration certificate the colour of the vehicle has been mentioned as Black and the same was issued by D.T.O. Fatehgarh Sahib instead of D.T.O. Roopnagar. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to give registration certificate to the complainant bearing the correct particulars as well as address of the complainant registered by D.T.O. Roopnagar at their own costs and further to pay Rs.70,000/- as damages including punitive damages. 

3.             Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but OP No.2 chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.             The complaint is contested by OP No.1. In reply to the complaint, OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated that the complainant wanted to get 8585 as registration number in auction and he told the OPs that to get the specific registration number he will himself approach the concerned authority and did not pay registration charges/tax etc to the OPs.  Thereafter on 02.01.2015 the complainant approached the OPs and requested to apply for the registration of his vehicle with D.T.O. Fatehgarh Sahib as he failed to get his desired registration number from D.T.O. Roopnagar and he has started his business in Khamano. On the said date i.e. 02.01.2015 the complainant paid the required fee for registration and tax etc to D.T.O. Fatehgarh Sahib and applied for the registration certificate through OP No.2 and got 7385 as registration number. Thereafter in the month of July 2015 the complainant approached the OPs to transfer the registration of the vehicle from Fatehgarh Sahib to Roopnagar. The OPs requested the complainant that they got the vehicle registered as per his wish and instruction and for any subsequent registration they are not liable to get the vehicle registered or transferred anywhere else.  The OPs have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             In order to prove his complaint the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copies of documents i.e. delivery challan Ex. C-2, temporary certificate of registration Ex. C-3, retail invoice Ex. C-4, insurance policy Ex. C-5, R.C.receipt Ex. C-6, registration details Ex. C-7, Receipt of tax Ex. C-8, receipt of society fees Ex. C-9, RC Ex. C-10, aadhaar card Ex. C-11 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Damanjot Singh Ex. OP1/1, information under RTI Act Ex. OP1/2, documents produced by complainant Ex. OP1/3 and closed the evidence.

6.             The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that in the delivery challan (Ex. C-2) issued by OP No.1 the colour of the scooter is clearly mentioned as 'White' but in the retail invoice( Ex. C-4) the colour of the scooter is mentioned as 'Black'.  In the temporary certificate of registration(Ex. C-3) issued by OP No.2, address of the complainant is mentioned of Rupnagar district and it also indicated at column No.10 that the vehicle is to be registered at Rupnagar but in the owner details issued by OP No.2( Ex. C-7) for registration the address of the complainant is mentioned as Mandeep Singh V.P.O. Rauni Khurd, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib. In this document OP No.2 mentioned the City and Postal City as Fatehgarh Sahib instead of Rupnagar. In this receipt for registration signed by OP No.2 all types of fees like vehicle tax, scan fee, smart card fee, registration fee, society fee, provisional RC fee and HSRP Fees have been received by the OP-2. Thus the OPs have committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice and that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs since he had paid all the charges including cost of the vehicle to the OPs.  Ld. counsel thus pleaded for acceptance of his complaint and penalizing the OPs for providing deficient services, indulging in unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

7.             The Ld. counsel for OP No.1 argued for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer and he has not availed any services of OP No.1 for consideration. And that no consideration has been paid for registration purposes since registration and issuance of RC is a statutory function. The complainant himself opted to apply for the registration of the vehicle directly to get the fancy number. The complainant himself is negligent since the vehicle can be registered in the district where the customer resides or carry on his business. OP No.1 has neither committed any deficiency in service nor indulged in any unfair trade practice.  The Ld. counsel thus pleaded for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost qua OP No.1. An ample opportunity was given to OP No.2 to appear in this Forum to contest the complaint but despite the service of notice none appeared for OP No.2, which amounts to admission of the averments of the complainant.

8.             After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced, written submissions and the oral arguments, we are of the opinion that the OPs have provided deficient services and indulged in unfair trade practices. Various judgments relied upon by OP No.1 are not relevant in this case. The complainant is a consumer since he has bought the vehicle from the OPs after paying full price of the scooter and all charges for registration of the vehicle to the OPs. It is OP No.1, who has correctly written as 'white' colour of the vehicle, whereas it has been wrongly written as 'Black' in retail invoice and registration details issued by OP No.2.  Similarly address and registering authority has been correctly mentioned in temporary registration number certificate and retail invoice whereas the city and district has been wrongly mentioned as Fatehgarh Sahib in registration details issued by OP No.2.

9.             Accordingly in view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint and find that OPs have certainly committed deficiency in service by mentioning various particulars of the vehicle differently in different documents given to the complainant or submitted before the registration authority and have indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence we direct the OPs:

a)   To get the registration certificate of the vehicle from Rupnagar with correct particulars at their own cost without charging anything from the complainant.

b)   To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.

            The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In case the OPs fail to comply with the same within the stipulated period, the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9 % p.a. on the awarded amount to the complainant till realization.

10.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 11.01.2017 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: 18.01.2017                                                           (Veena Chahal)

 

                                                                                           Member

                                                                                    (A.B.Aggarwal)

                                                                                          Member