BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.435 of 2014

Date of Instt. 11.12.2014

Date of Decision :27.03.2015

Shakti Takiar son of Pawan Takiar, R/o House No.B-8/280, Mohalla Subash Nagar, Nurmahal, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Lovely Autos, Jalandhar Road, Opposite Bhagat Ram Petrol Pump, Malri Road, Nakodar Authorized dealer (sales) Branch Manager District Jalandhar.

2. Lovely Mall, Dr.Ambedkar Chowk, Jalandhar City-144001 through its Authorized dealer (Head Official), Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Manjit Rai Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Arun Gupta Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant has purchased a car model Maruti Swift VDI, while coloured, Engine No.DI3A00502503, Chassis no.703571 from the opposite party No.1 who is authorized dealer of the Lovely Autos which is opposite party No.2, on 20.8.2014 for Rs.6,55,000/- including the charges of insurance and registration certificate of the vehicle. The opposite party No.1 only gave the insurance cover note to the complainant of Rs.22,636/- and assured that registration certificate will be given within 15-20 days. After one month the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for receiving the registration cover of the vehicle but the opposite party No.1 started demanding Rs.15,000/- more from the complainant for delivering the RC of the vehicle to the complainant by asking that the taxes from the DTO office have been increased, so the complainant will have to pay Rs.15,000/- to take the RC of the vehicle. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to deliver him RC of the vehicle in question. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the net cost of the vehicle was Rs.6,00,906/-. The opposite party No.1 received amount for insurance and registration charges. It is important to mention that the complainant wanted choice number for which the complainant has to pay extra amount for getting the choice number. The opposite parties asked him to pay extra amount but the complainant did not pay at that time and promised to pay the extra amount within few days. The opposite parties as good will gesture paid the difference amount and applied for the registration of the RC which will be delivered as and when received by the DTO department. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for both the parties.

6. The dispute involved in the present complaint is regarding non supply of certificate of registration. There is no reliable evidence on record to prove that complainant wanted fancy or choice number. However, during the pendency of the present complaint, the opposite parties supplied certificate of registration to learned counsel for the complainant. His statement in this regard was recorded separately on 20.3.2015. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses. Counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party was required to deposit the registration charges with the State Government on the same day online but it failed to do so and in the mean time registration charges was increased from 6% to 8% and due to this reason the opposite party started demanding the enhanced charges from the complainant and refused to issue the RC. Notification dated 28.6.2014 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Transport provides as under:-

"That no vehicle which is sold by the dealer and any native of Punjab shall be allowed to be driven/taken out of the showroom unless the temporary registration number is allotted to the vehicle by the dealer after getting the registration fee, HPA fee and the Motor Vehicles Tax(in lump sum) as fixed by the Government from time to time. The Motor Vehicles Tax and fee etc received from the purchaser/owner of the vehicle shall be deposited online system into the State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day by the dealer".

7. So as per above notification, the dealer is required to deposit the registration charges online into State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day. Since the opposite party failed to deposit the registration charges on the same day, as such the complainant can not be blamed, if subsequently the State Government has enhanced the registration fee from 6% to 8%. Non depositing of registration charges on the same day as per the above notification, constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.

8. The complainant had to file the present complaint before opposite party delivered a certificate of registration. So he is entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed to give Rs.5000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

27.03.2015 Member Member President