DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.44 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 12.02.2015
DATE OF ORDER: -10.02.2015
Suresh Kumar Thakan son of Shri Dayachand, resident of village and Post Office Mandhana, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s Jaya Auto Mobile, Meham Road, Bhiwani.
- Hero Motor Corps Ltd. Community Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mini Secretariat, Bhiwani.
- The State Transport Controller, 30 bays Building, 2nd Floor, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Complainant in person.
Shri Lalit Mohan, Advocate for OP no. 1.
OP no. 2 to 4 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 26.03.2014 he had purchased the motorcycle make Hero motor corp Ltd. Model-Xtreme Chessis No.-MBLKC12EHEGA05398 for an amount of Rs. 59758/- from OP no. 1. It is alleged that while preparing the sale certificate and insurance papers name of his father is wrongly entered as Dayanand in place of Dayachand by OP no. 1. It is alleged that on 31.03.2014 he informed the same to OP no. 1 and requested for correction but OP no. 1 told that no amendment is possible now you should approach to SDM office. It is alleged that the complainant went to SDM office but SDM office denied to accept the application. The complainant submitted written complaint to the SDM, Bhiwani on dated 22.05.2014 and requested to resolve the problem. Then complainant submitted written complaint on dated 01.09.2014 in DC office about the matter and requested to look into the matter but the request was again transferred back to SDM office for solution. It is admitted that the complainant submitted On Line complaint through web site of OP no. 2 but all in vain . The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement and took preliminary objections and denied the allegations of the complainant. On merits, it is alleged that complainant visited the showroom of OP no. 1 after the expiry of validity period of 30 days of temporary registration from the date of purchase of said vehicle. It is submitted that the complainant after a period of more than 11 months has filed the present complaint. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. OP No. 3 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent has no right to alter or amend the Sale Certificate and Insurance Papers. It is submitted that he has no right to file the present complaint as he is a stranger and third party qua the answering respondent. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. OP no. 2 to 4 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 27.03.2015 and 27.08.2015.
5. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 alongwith supporting affidavit. Replication filed by the complainant.
6. In reply thereto, the opposite party no. 1 has placed on record Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2.
7. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP no. 1.
8. The complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint. He submitted that his father’s name has been mentioned as Dayanand in place of Dayachand by the OP no. 1 in the sale documents of his motor cycle in question. Hence, the OP no. 3 has refused to register his vehicle and so he is not able to ply the same on the road. In support of his contention he referred the copy of his driving licence and ration card to show that his father name is Dayachand.
9. Learned counsel for OP No. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant approached the OP no. 1 after the expiry of 30 days from the date of sale of the motor cycle and OP no. 1 cannot change or amend the name as alleged by the complainant.
10. We have perused the record. The name of the father of the complainant has been mentioned as Dayachand in the driving licence and ration card, but it has been mentioned as Dayanand in the sale documents of the motor cycle issued by the OP no. 1 to the complainant. The contention of the complainant that he is not able to ply his motor cycle on the road for want of registration certificate is tenable. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP no. 1 and 2 to rectify the name of the father of the complainant from Dayanand to Dayachand in the sale documents of the motor cycle and issue the require documents for the registration of the motor cycle of the complainant so that the complainant can apply for the registration of his motor cycle with the concerned registering authority. This order be complied with by the OP no. 1 & 2 within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 10.02.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member.
