BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.539 of 2015

Date of Instt. 24.12.2015

Date of Decision : 15.07.2016

Amandeep Singh aged about 35 years son of Dev Raj R/o Village Sherpur, Golind, PO Nanowal Jattan, District Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant

Versus

Kosmo Vehicle Pvt Ltd., (Tata Motors), near D.P.S. GT Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite party exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) on the averments that complainant purchased Indica Vista Car bearing temporary No.PB08 0722 from OP on 24.7.2012 for a sum of Rs.5,20,447/-. Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.13,800/- to the OP vide receipts dated 31.3.2012 for RC of the vehicle but the OP did not hand over the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant despite the fact that complainant paid another sum of Rs.15,000/- to the OP vide receipt dated 2.12.2015. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to return the full cost of RC. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.

4. We have heard the complainant in person and minutely gone through the record.

5. From the record i.e. averments of the complaint and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Indica Vista Car bearing temporary No.PB08 0722 from OP on 24.7.2012 for a sum of Rs.5,20,447/-. Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.13,800/- to the OP vide receipts dated 31.3.2012 for RC of the vehicle but the OP did not hand over the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant despite the fact that complainant paid another sum of Rs.15,000/- to the OP vide receipt dated 2.12.2015. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

6. Complainant prove his case i.e. version of the complaint through his affidavit Ex.CA and he also proved on record detailed invoice of the vehicle in question Ex.C1, temporary registration number Ex.C3, loan documents of the vehicle in question Ex.C4, Ex.C6, Ex.C7, insurance cover note Ex.C5. However, the OP did not turn-up despite service and as such OP was proceeded against exparte.

7. Complainant did not produce any document regarding the RC of the vehicle in question, so, the record of the RC of the vehicle in question was summoned from the OP. Even the concerned official/ dealing hand of the OP did not turn-up despite service nor produced the record. So, he was summoned through bailable warrants. Then, OP appeared through Vijay Devgan, General Manager of the OP and Mr.Anmol, Mechanic who produced the receipt dated 31.8.2012 vide which the complainant deposited the requisite fee for registration of the vehicle with the OP, i.e. receipt of Rs.15,000/- dated 2.12.2015 vide which the complainant deposited extra amount of RC fee with the OP and other documents regarding registration of the vehicle in question from the Transport Department. OP got prepared the RC of the vehicle of complainant and handed over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant in this Forum on 8.7.2016. Complainant submitted that OP has demanded extra amount of Rs.15,000/- from him whereas Sh.Vijay Devgan, General Manager of OP produced on record the notification of Government of Punjab dated 31.8.2012 vide which the Government of Punjab has increased the fee of registration of vehicles by 2% which was effective from 1.9.2012. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OP on 24.7.2012 but complainant did not deposit the registration fee of the vehicle in question with the OP on that day i.e. 24.7.2012 but deposited the fee for registration of the vehicle on 31.8.2012 i.e. after lapse a period of more than one month and that too when he came to know that the Government of Punjab issued notification dated 31.8.2012 for the increase of registration fee by 2% of the price of the vehicle. The OP has to prepare the documents and then to submit the case with the Transport Department/DTO for registration of the vehicle of the complainant. So, it could not be submitted with the Transport Department/DTO by OP on the same day i.e. 31.8.2012 whereas the Government of Punjab has increased the registration fee of the vehicle in question vide notification dated 31.8.2012 effective on 1.9.2012 i.e. the next day of notification. So, this Forum is of the opinion that the OP was justified in demanding the amount of enhanced registration fee from the complainant and the complainant deposited this fee of Rs.15,000/- with the OP vide receipt dated 2.12.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than three years. So, there is laps/ laches on the part of the complainant also. However, as per the RC produced by the OP and handed over to the complainant in this Forum on 8.7.2016, the OP got prepared the RC of the vehicle of the complainant on 31.3.2013 by depositing enhanced fee from their own pocket. However, OP did not hand over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant on 31.3.2013 or in the near future thereafter, but retained the same. As such, complainant could not ply the vehicle on road without risk. The OP was liable to hand over the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant when it was got prepared on 31.3.2013 or in the near future thereafter. However, OP was adamant in not handing over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant and even OP did not hand over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant on receipt of amount of enhanced fee of the RC from the complainant vide receipt dated 2.12.2015 produced by the OP itself. The OP did not turn-up in this Forum despite service even OP did not produce the record despite service of summons and ultimately bailable warrants of the concerned official i.e. Anmol was issued and then on the service of bailable warrants said Anmol and Vijay Devgan, General Manager of the OP appeared on 8.7.2016 and produced on record from which it stands proved on record that the complainant deposited even the enhanced fee of the RC with the Ops on 2.12.2015. Even then the OP did not hand over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant on 2.12.2015 rather the OP was forced to appear in this Forum through bailable warrants and then the OP produced the RC of the vehicle in this Forum which was handed over to the complainant on 8.7.2016 i.e. after lapse a period of more than seven months even after receiving the entire fee of the RC including enhanced amount of fee of the RC from the complainant. So, certainly the OP is in deficiency of service qua the complainant in not handing over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant for such a long time even after receiving the entire amount of the RC including enhanced fee of the RC from the complainant. As such, complainant could not ply the vehicle on road and has to bear great risk. Thereby, he suffered harassment and mental agony for which he is entitled to compensation.

8. Consequently, the present complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. OP is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

15.07.2016 Member President