Haryana

Sonipat

CC/267/2015

Shiv Kumar S/o Subhash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagmohan Motors - Opp.Party(s)

SUDESH PANCHAL

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.267 of 2015

Instituted on: 10.08.2015                 

Date of order: 14.03.2016

 

Shiv Kumar son of Subhash Kumar, r/o H.No.149/1, Ward no.5, Sunder Sanwri, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.Jagmohan Motors Ltd., Maruti Authorized Dealers, Sonepat Head Office, Delhi Bahalgarh road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

2.Registration Authority, Sonepat through its Authorized Signatory.

                                       …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Ms. Yuvika Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.Sanjay Kankarwal, Adv. for respondent no.1.

          Respondent no.2 ex-parte on 12.10.2015.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V.Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased Maruti Swift LDI Car from respondent no.1 for Rs.539282/- on 15.12.2014 and at that time, the respondent no.1 has assured the complainant to get prepare the RC of the vehicle on the expenses of the complainant with other charges.  The temporary Registration certificate was issued by the respondent no.1  with validity date from 13.12.2014 to 12.12.2015.  When the complainant has applied for making RC of the said vehicle prior to the validity date, the respondent no.2 said that RC of the vehicle was to be prepared within one month after issuance of temporary number and now the complainant has to pay Rs.405/- per day penalty for the issuance of RC in respect of the vehicle in question.  The complainant approached the respondent no.1 in this regard, but the respondent no.1 has said that there is no liability upon them for making RC of the vehicle and

this wrongful act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 has appeared and has filed his written statement, whereas respondent no.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.10.2015.

          In reply, the respondent no.1 has submitted that there is clerical mistake in the temporary registration certificate of the complainant as 12.12.2015 in place of 12.01.2015 was written.  The said temporary certificate was issued on 13.12.2014 and it was valid for only one month i.e. upto 12.1.2015. The salesman of the respondent no.1 has informed the complainant telephonically regarding the said mistake and requested the complainant to obtain the correct temporary certificate and the new temporary RC by making correction was delivered to the complainant on 15.12.2014 alongwith bills and it was asked to the complainant to apply for RC within 30 days but the complainant avoided to return the old temporary certificate to the respondent no.1.  The complainant only to harass and humiliate the respondent no.1 has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondent no.1.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the  respondent no.1 has submitted that there is clerical mistake in the temporary registration certificate of the complainant as 12.12.2015 in place of 12.01.2015 was written.  The said temporary certificate was issued on 13.12.2014 and it was valid for only one month i.e. upto 12.1.2015. The salesman of the respondent no.1 has informed the complainant telephonically regarding the said mistake and requested the complainant to obtain the correct temporary certificate and the new temporary RC by making correction was delivered to the complainant on 15.12.2014 alongwith bills and it was asked to the complainant to apply for RC within 30 days but the complainant avoided to return the old temporary certificate to the respondent no.1.  The complainant only to harass and humiliate the respondent no.1 has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondent no.1.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

          In the present case, the complainant has placed on record the copy of Temporary Registration Certificate as Ex.C4 and the respondent no.1 has placed his document as Annexure R2.  In the above said document, the date of issue is mentioned as 13.12.2014 and validity date is mentioned as 12.12.2015. On the contrary, the respondent no.1 has placed on record Annexure R-1 Temporary Registration certificate, in which, the date of issue is mentioned as 13.12.2014 and validity date is mentioned as 12.01.2015 i.e. valid for only one month.

          The complainant’s stand is that due to the wrongly issued temporary certificate which was issued on 13.12.2014 with validity date upto 12.12.2015, he could not apply for the issuance of RC of the vehicle in question within 30 days from the date of issuance of temporary registration certificate under the impression that this certificate is valid upto 12.12.2015 and when he applied for the issuance of RC with the respondent no.2, then it was told to him by the respondent no.2 that the complainant has to pay penalty of Rs.405/- per day and this all has happened due to the deficient services rendered by the respondent no.1.

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum whether the complainant is entitled for any relief or not?

          In our view, the complainant is entitled to get the penalty amount from the respondent no.1 w.e.f. 12.01.2015 to 16.7.2015, because on 16.7.2015 the complainant has got served the respondent no.1 through legal notice and on that date, the mistake committed by the respondent no.1 was in the knowledge of the complainant.  In our view, the complainant must have got registered his vehicle with the respondent no.2 after 16.7.2015, but he has not done so.  So, in our view, the respondent no.1 cannot escape from his legal liabilities and is liable to pay the penalty amount to the complainant w.e.f. 12.01.2015 to 16.07.2015 only.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to pay the penalty amount to the complainant for the period as directed above.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)      (DV Rathi)        (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF       Member, DCDRF,      President

    SNP                SNP              DCDRF SNP.

 

ANNOUNCED: 14.03.2016