ORDER

23.08.2024

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

1. In  brief  facts of the complaint  are that on 31.01.2014, complainant purchased Hyundai car make Grand I-10 model Meghna vide registration no. DL10CS194 from the showroom of OP1. It is further stated that even after expiry of the one month of the purchase OP1 did not hand over the registration certificate of the vehicle in question to her.  It is further stated that after the lapse of one month OP3 gave cash receipt issued by RTO to the complainant stating that  till the RC is issued the cash receipt will be valid for driving the vehicle in question.
2. It is further alleged by the complainant that after going through the cash receipt she noticed that the colour of the car mentioned in the receipt was pure white instead of star dust, as such complainant immediately rushed to OP3 and pointed out the defect in the receipt and requested to rectify the same. The officials of OP3 assured the complainant to provide new receipt or original RC within few days.  It is further alleged that on various occasions complainant approached OP3 for getting the original cash receipt as well the original RC but all in vain. It is further alleged by the complainant that her car met with an accident and for getting the insurance claim she has to run from pillar to post due to absence of original RC of the vehicle in question. Being aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of OPs complainant served legal notice dated 11.06.2014 and only on the receipt of the legal notice the OP1 handed over the original RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant on 14.06.2014. It is  further alleged by the complainant that due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP for non handing of the original RC, the complainant has to suffer mental pain and agony as well as financial loss as such she is entitled for compensation and for this she approached this Commission and file the present complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was sent to all the OPs. Joint written statement filed on behalf of OPs wherein OPs had denied any deficiency in service on their part. It is further stated that the description of the colour of the vehicle printed on RC as provided by the dealer was incorrect which was returned to RTO authority for carrying on the necessary rectification. The rectification process took around two months as such there was a delay in submitting the original RC to the complainant. It is  further stated that the complainant approached OP in the month of April, 2014 and an appropriate application for correction with the motor licensing authority by dealer on 16.04.2014 was carried out, the correction was approved by the RTO on 12.06.2014 and corrected RC was handed over  by the authority to OP1 on 13.06.2014 and thereafter the corrected RC was finally handed over to the complainant on 14.06.2014. It is further stated that delay was due to above explained reason and not intentional, hence, no case of deficiency can be made out against OPs and in favor of the complainant. It is stated that the present complaint is nothing but the abuse of process of law, hence, dismissed with cost.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reiterated the contents of complaint.
5. Complainant filed evidence by way of her affidavit and reiterated contents of complaint. Complainant relied on copy of the legal notice dated 11.06.2024, copy of RC in support of her contention.
6. Sh. Hardeep Singh AR for OP filed evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of all the OPs. OP has placed on record the receipt dated 8.02.2014 issued by RTO.
7. Written arguments filed by complainant as well as by OPs.
8. We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant Sh. Ved Prakash  and Ms.  Deepriya Sneha on behalf of OP and have perused the record.
9. It is the admitted case of the complainant that she had purchased the vehicle in question from OP1 on 31.01.2014. She received the original RC of the vehicle in question from the OP1 on 14.06.2014 after four months of the purchase of the vehicle in question. As per record the OP had applied to RTO for the first time on 08.02.2014 in respect to the RC of the vehicle in question. The OP itself has admitted in its WS at para1 (B) of the paragraphs wise reply that inadvertently the nominated officer of the dealer punch incorrect details in respect to the colour of the vehicle in question and as such the original RC needs to be rectified with the permission of the complainant. OP1 carried out the rectification proceedings with RTO and finally RTO handed over the corrected RC to OP1 on 13.06.2014 and OP1 further handed over the RC to the complainant on 14.06.2014.
10. The entire documents placed on record clearly establish that inadvertently during the punching of the document with RTO the officials of the OP mistakenly mentioned that colour of the vehicle as pure white instead of star dust resulting in the rectification of the RC of the vehicle in question.  The complainant has alleged in her complaint that she met with an accident and for getting the insurance claim she has to run from pillar to post in the absence of RC and suffered pain the mental agony as well as financial loss, beside bare versions, no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to establish the contents of the accident as well as the loss suffered by her.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that  although inadvertently the nominated officer of the dealer punch incorrect details in respect to the colour of the vehicle in question and as such the original RC needs to be rectified, but this cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint rather it is a human error/ bonafide error which can be done by anybody while furnishing the details due to oversight, moreover, as soon as the complainant brought to the knowledge of the officials of the OPs, the defect in RC , OP1 applied for the rectification as per the procedure laid down and immediately handed over the RC to the complainant as and when received, hence, we come to the conclusion that complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service against OP, we therefore find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

12. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  23.08.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                        RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                             MEMBER