DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 482/12
Trinath Khera,
P-55, South Extension Part-II,
New Delhi – 110049 -Complainant
Vs
1. M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors P. Limited,
E-225, Lajpat Nagar 4,
Near Amar Colony Police Station,
New Delhi – 110024
2. Mr. Rahul Sawhney,
C/o M/s T.R. Sawhney Motors P. Limited,
E-225, Lajpat Nagar 4,
Near Amar Colony Police Station,
New Delhi – 110024
3. Mr. D.R. Grover,
F-24, Main Vikas Marg, Preet Vihar,
New Delhi – 110092
4. Mr. Ashwani Kumar C/O
M/s Mefcons (India) Ltd.
F-24, Main Vikas Marg, Preet Vihar,
New Delhi – 110024 -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 07.09.2012
Date of Order: 23.01.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant had sold his old Matiz car to OP-3 who is a car broker in order to purchase a new Zen Estillo car from OP-1. The complainant was assured by OP-3 that the price of the Matiz car would be adjusted against the payment to be made by the complainant towards the purchase of the new Zen Estillo car. The complainant got prepared a Pay Order for an amount of Rs. 3 Lacs in favour of OP-1. Besides this OP-3 also got two cheques of Rs. 30700/- dated 10.8.10 and Rs. 9696/- signed from the complainant. The complainant was given delivery of the Zen Estillo car on 10.8.10. The complainant has made allegations of harassment and blackmailing against OP-2 of OP-1 and OP-3 & 4. According to the complainant, he also lodged a written complaint with Hauz Khas Police Station that the OPs were harassing and trying to blackmail the complainant. The police did not register a case so far. On the other hand, the OPs had started asking the complainant to pay Rs. 50,000/- to them on account of bribe money which the OPs had to pay to the police personnel. It is stated that OP-3 took advantage of the trust of the complainant which the complainant had reposed in him and OP-3 made wrong calculation and filled higher amount in the cheque by Rs. 4309/- which OP-3 has not refunded to him. It is stated that in the absence of Smart Card the complainant could not make the insurance claim and, hence, he had to spend about Rs. 35,000/- on the car repairs from his own pocket. It is stated that despite promises made by the OPs Smart card (certificate of registration) has not been delivered to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayers:
- to direct the respondents to hand over to the complainant the Smart Card, so called Registration Document and other all relevant documents in respect of complainant’s car Zen Estillo.
- to award compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favor of the complainant and against the respondents for harassing the complainant and for creating such a situation that the complainant has not been able to make use of its car for the purpose the car was bought.
- to order the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 4,309/- which the respondents have charged in excess by making wrong calculation. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- which the complainant is forced to pay on the repairs of his car Zen Estillo.
- to award litigation expenses for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in favor of the complainant and against the respondents.
OP-1 & 2 have been proceeded exparte vide order dated 18.1.13. Defence of OP-3 & 4 has been closed vide order dated 02.09.13.
The complainant has filed his affidavit in exparte evidence. He has also filed written submissions. He has moved an application for amendment of the claim from Rs. 1,64,309/- to Rs. 3,65,309/-.
We have heard the complainant in person.
So far as the question regarding refund of Rs. 4309/- and Rs. 35,000/- is concerned, complainant has not filed any documentary proof in this regard.
The next question is with regard to the non-delivery of the Smart Card (Registration Certificate) in respect of the Zen Estillo car by OP-1 to the complainant. In this regard, we place reliance on Section 41(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which prescribes that the registering authority shall issue to the owner of the motor vehicle registered by it a certificate of registration in such form and containing such particulars and information and in such a manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. This provision is too clear to interpret. Therefore, it was the duty of the complainant to approach the registering authority in case he was not issued a certificate of registration in respect of the Zen Estillo car. Therefore, in the absence of any contract to the contrary between the parties it was not the legal duty of OP-1 to collect the certificate of registration from the registering authority and to give it to the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service which otherwise is not pleaded in the compliant.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 23.01.16.
Case No. 482/12
23.1.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
By D K Yadav.
