Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/347

Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lally Motors pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ms Asha Sood

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/347 of 16.12.2014

                                      Decided on: 10.4.2015

 

Jarnail Singh s/o S.Hardev Singh, resident of  village Bhamarsi Zer, P.O. Bhamarsi Buland, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib (Ph.No.842769970)       

 

                                                                  Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1.       Lally Motors Private Limited, Rajpura-Patiala Road, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, through its authorized representative.

2.       Regd., Office, G.T.Road, Paragpur, Jallandhar, through its authorized representative.

 

                                                                 Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                                  

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     In person.

For Op No.1:       Sh.Rajan Verma,Advocate     

 

         

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant had purchased the vehicle make Honda Mobilio SMT(D) T/W bearing its temporary registration No.PB 11(T)ZJ on 29.9.2014 from op no.1 which is the branch of op no.2, having raised the bank loan from the Fatehgarh Sahib Central Co-Operative Bank Limited in a sum of Rs.8,79,000/-.On 26.9.2014, a demand draft of Rs.9,95,900/- was handed over to op no.1 by the complainant through the aforesaid Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and after deducting basic price +Vat+surcharge+ charges for getting the registration certificate prepared, Op no.1 returned an amount of Rs.55808/- to the complainant on 6.10.2014 vide cheque No.929419.
2. After 6.10.2014 till the date of the filing of the complaint, the complainant enquired about the certificate of registration from op no.1 but to no effect and ultimately Op no.1 demanded more amount towards the tax for getting the certificate of registration prepared and that in case he failed to pay the same , op no.1 was not ready to get the certificate of registration prepared and  rather refused to do so.
3. The complainant visited Op no.1 many a times and lastly he had visited in the month of November,2014, when op no.1 refused to get the certificate of registration prepared. The act of the op in not getting the certificate of registration prepared is said to be a deficiency in service and therefore, the complainant is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him qua the expenses of the litigation. The complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 19.11.2014 through his counsel with a request to get the certificate of registration prepared within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice but to no effect. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint  against the ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to get the certificate of registration of the vehicle prepared; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation in the manner aforesaid and also to award the expenses of the litigation.
4. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against op no.1 only, who on appearance filed the written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia, that the complainant is not a consumer of the op in respect of the relief sought by him; that the complainant has not jointed the State Govt. as an op who is the actual recipient of the tax in which the op has got no right or interest and that the complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted by the op that the complainant is a consumer of the op having purchased the car from it. The amount of road tax is collected as per the guidelines of the State Govt. and the State Govt. has got the prerogative to increase or decrease the same. The complainant was issued the temporary certificate of registration of the vehicle purchased by him from the OP bearing No. PB ZJ(T) 1745.The vehicle was sold for a consideration of Rs.8,79,000/-. It is admitted by the op that it had received the demand draft for Rs.9,95,900/- from the Central Co-operative Bank, Fatehgarh Sahib on 29.9.2014 and the amount thereof was credited in the account of the OP on 1.10.2014. It is also admitted by the op that it had refunded the excess amount of Rs.55808/- to the complainant vide cheque No.9,28,419/- after having deducted the price of the vehicle and other related charges including the  registration fee.
5. It is further the plea taken up by the op that the preparation of the certificate of registration demands the co-operation and co-ordination of various departments of the op with the registration office. The op had a time of one month at its disposal in getting the RC prepared as the temporary  RC was valid for one month from the date of its issuance. The executive of the op consulted the complainant telephonically firstly on 29.9.2014 so as to know about the choice number, the complainant wanted for his vehicle and the complainant instructed to arrange for a number ending with the digits of 31. Accordingly under the instructions of the complainant, the concerned executive of the op asked the registration official to find out the availability of the registration number ending with the digits 31 and who in response asked the executive to pay Rs.5000/- instantly and to get the number of choice locked or wait for the number to come in sequence. The said information was immediately shared with the complainant but the complainant instructed the executive to wait for some time and let the number come by sequence and then select the same. On 6^th October,2014, the RC consultant succeeded to lock the registration no. PB-23R-2831 for the complainant and the said information was shared with the complainant on 6.10.2014 as can be ascertained from the call details of the executive of the OP Annexure ‘F’ and even from the screen shot taken from the official web site of RTO Annexure ‘G’ and GI. Unfortunately on 7.10.2014 the State Govt. had enhanced the slab of the tax for the registration of the vehicles and the accountant of the op could post only one tax on 7.10.2014 and thereafter the site of the registration department had gone off line and therefore, no tax could be deposited at the old rates of tax, which fact can be ascertained from Annexure ‘H’ showing the deposit of the tax from 25.9.2014 to 10.10.2014 by the Op. The notification dated 7.10.2014 is Annexure ‘H-1’. The Op after the enhancement of the tax started informing the concerned car owners and requested them to deposit the enhanced tax . Even the complainant was informed telephonically by the RC consultant and sales executive after 7.10.2014. A notice was also sent to the complainant on 20.10.2014 through courier and on 13.11.2014 through speed post. The auto dealers had also held a meeting against the unprecedented increase in the tax in order to raise a protest. The matter also invited the attention of the news papers and the news appeared in the headlines. The complainant , instead of depositing the enhanced tax got the op served with a legal notice, which was duly replied by the OP. There were Govt. holidays between 2^nd October to 6^th October. The dealership remained closed on 2^nd October ( Gandhi Jayanti) , 3^rd October (Dussehra holiday). 4^th October was the working day but the registration office was closed being Saturday. 5^th October was Sunday. On 6^th October there was a holiday of Id and the registration office was closed. The Govt. had increased the tax without any notice either to the dealers or the general public. Therefore, the dealership , is not responsible for the delay in depositing the amount of the tax on behalf of the complainant. The Op is ready to get the RC prepared on the complainant making the payment of the enhanced tax. The complainant had no cause of action to file the complaint against the Op. The op has also raised objection about the jurisdiction of this Forum to try and decide the complaint. Ultimately, it was prayed by the op to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C9 and the complainant closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op,  Sh.Ashok Verma, Senior ASM (Sales) of the op tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP22 and closed the evidence of the Op.
8. The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the OP, the complainant present in person and also gone through the evidence on record.
9. There is no dispute  with regard to the complainant having purchased the vehicle make Honda Mobilio SMT(D) T/W from op no.1 on  29.9.2014 vide retail invoice Ex.C2. There is also no dispute with regard to the complainant having deposited the fee for the certificate of registration to be got issued by Op no.1 in favor of the complainant. The dispute occurred only because of op no.1 having not got the complainant permanent certificate of registration issued after the expiry of the temporary certificate of registration Ex.OP1, which was meant for the period 29.9.2014 to 28.10.2014 because of the enhancement of the vehicle tax from 6% to 8% by-virtue of the notification dated 7^th October,2014,Ex.OP11 issued by the Govt. of Punjab, Department of Transport and which had come into force w.e.f. 8.10.2014.As per the plea of the complainant he had approached the op after 6.10.2014 and till the date of the filing of the complaint many a times to enquire about the certificate of registration but to no effect and that then op no.1 raised a demand of more tax  and in case he failed to pay the same it will not get the same issued. In this regard, it is the plea taken up by the op that after the enhancement of the vehicle tax, the op had informed the complainant vide intimation sent through courier on 20.10.2014, the copy of the courier receipt being Ex.C13 and on 13.11.2014 through speed post, copy of the letter sent through speed post being Ex.C12 and copy of the postal receipt being Ex.OP14.
10. We have examined the matter conspicuously and are of the considered view that no authenticity is attached to the courier receipt,Ex.C13 which is disclosed as consignor copy. Name of the consignor is recorded as Lally Motors and name of the consignee is recorded as Jarnail Singh, FGSI i.e. Fatehgarh Sahib. Nothing can be made out from Ex.OP13 as to what was sent by Lally Motors to Jarnail Singh.The Op should have produced the copy of the letter sent through courier to the complainant. After all the op was supposed to maintain a copy of the same in its office. No address of  Lally Motors is disclosed in the consignor copy, Ex.OP13. Even the address of the consignee Jarnail Singh  is also not given in Ex.OP13. Therefore, it appears that  the consignor copy,Ex.OP13 has been manipulated by the Op. In case the op could send the letter,Ex.OP12 on 13.11.2014 through speed post why it was not possible for the op to have sent the letter earlier on 20.10.2014 to the complainant through speed post. In this way, we are of the considered view that no intimation had been sent by the op to the complainant before 13.11.2014 when the op had sent the letter, Ex.OP12 to the complainant having disclosed the complainant about his liability to deposit the enhanced tax.
11. It was submitted by the complainant Sh.Jarnail Singh that he remained under the impression that the amount of the vehicle tax deposited by him with the op had already been deposited by op no.1 with the Motor Vehicle Authority before the enhancement of the vehicle tax vide notification dated 7.10.2014 and therefore, until he received the intimation from the op, he could not deposit the enhanced tax. He also submitted that the plea taken up by the op that he was asked for a choice number and that he demanded a choice number ending with the digits 31 is a story concocted by the op to cover up their lapse in having deposited the vehicle tax immediately after the sale of the vehicle made by the op in his favor on 19.9.2014 and before the enhancement of the vehicle tax, in respect of which he has also deposed in his sworn affidavit,Ex.CA. He also submitted that because of the non issuance of the certificate of registration after 28.10.2014 he is not able to ply the vehicle and has thus suffered harassment and mental  agony.
12. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.Rajan Verma, the learned counsel for the op that the op had informed the complainant about the enhanced tax vide the intimation sent through courier on 20.10.2014 as also on 13.11.2014 but the complainant failed to deposit the enhanced tax.
13. We have considered the matter and are or the considered view that the complainant remained under the impression that the amount of the vehicle tax deposited by him with the op had been deposited by the op with the Motor Vehicle(Registering) Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib and we are also of the considered view that the complainant had not received any intimation from the op prior to the expiry of the validity period the temporary RC meant for the period 29.9.2014 to 28.10.2014 as the proper intimation can be said to have been sent by the op to the complainant only on 13.11.2014 vide Ex.OP12 through speed post, the copy of the postal receipt  being Ex.OP14 because we have not placed any reliance upon the consignor copy Ex.OP12 of the First Flight Couriers Limited.RHO Ludhiana. The op was supposed to bring to the notice of the complainant about the enhancement in the vehicle tax in advance before the expiry of the validity period the temporary certificate of registration, Ex.C1 and failure to do so amounts to a deficiency of service on the part of the Op. No doubt the op had a sufficient time at its disposal after the enhancement of the vehicle tax after the notification dated 7.10.2014 up to the date of the expiry of the temporary certificate of registration i.e. 28.10.2014 but the op failed to inform the complainant about his liability to pay the enhanced vehicle tax. We are however, of the considered view that the complainant is liable to pay the enhanced amount of the vehicle tax. Resultantly, we accept the complaint and direct the complainant to deposit the enhanced amount of the vehicle tax with the op who shall get the certificate of registration issued within a week from the date of the deposit of the enhanced vehicle tax from the competent authority and deliver the same to the complainant. In view of the deficiency of service on the part of the op which resulted into the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant as he could not ply the vehicle on road after 28.10.2014 without the RC, the op shall provide the complainant with a compensation in a sum of Rs.35,000/-. The complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. The order regarding the payment of compensation and costs be complied by the op within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Dated: 10.4.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                  Neelam Gupta                         D.R.Arora

          Member               Member                                   President