ORDER                                    Dated:  06-10-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President



1.     The complainant filed this complaint on 27.10.2009 and alleged
that as per the advertisement of the OP, the executive of OP asked him
to give offier in sealed cover along with the earnest money amount of
Rs. 50,000/- in the form of DD and his offer of Indica car no. DL 3CW
3070 was accepted and after payment of the balance amount he  took
delivery of vehicle on 15.10.2007 along with form no. 29 and 30 as
required for transferring of vehicle along with the R/C Cover and
insurance cover.  Thereafter complainant reached RTO office for
getting the vehicle transferred but RTO office refused to transfer the
same  in his name as the vehicle was in bank’s name. Hence he
approached OP so many times but his efforts failed.  A legal notice
was sent by him to the OP but OP did not reply the notice. Hence it is
prayed that OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 97,033/- being
the cost of the vehicle, refund of insurance amount of Rs.7420/- along
with 18 % interest p.a. and the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for
harassment and  Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges.

2.     In reply, OP admitted that offer of the complainant regarding
Indica Car No. DL 3CW 3070 was accepted and the delivery of the
aforesaid vehicle along with R/C Cover and insurance cover, form no.
29 and 30 were given to the complainant.  Rest of the allegations made
in the complaint were denied. It was further stated that as per the
newspaper the vehicle was sold on “as is where is basis” as well as
complainant purchased the vehicle after completing inspection. Hence
there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the
complaint be dismissed.

3.     The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained
that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of his
complaint complainant filed his affidavit along with documents.

4.      In support of reply OP filed affidavit of Sh. Jagat Singh
(Senior Manager) along with documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-5.

5.     Both the parties filed their written arguments.

6.     We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by
the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points
to be considered are as under:-

(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(c) Relief?

7.     It is admitted by the OP that offer of the complainant
regarding Indica Car No. DL 3CW 3070 was accepted and complainant’s
bid amount of Rs.97,003/-was received by the OP.  Thereafter
complainant took delivery of the car along with R/C Cover and
insurance cover. Hence, complainant is a consumer.

8.     Admittedly, complainant purchased the vehicle DL 3CW 3070
through advertisement Ex. R2, wherein sale of the vehicle was “as is
where is basis”. OP has handed over the vehicle, its R.C. Cover,
Insurance Cover and Form nos. 29 and 30 to transfer the ownership of
the vehicle in the name of complainant in RTO Department as per the
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and its rules.  Complainant has failed
to produce any letter of the RTO department for non transfer of the
vehicle in his name to the OP as well as in this forum.

9.     In these above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP
and present complaint is dismissed accordingly.  Both the parties will
bear their own cost.

10.                         Copy of the order be made available to the
parties as per law. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on this   ………..