Haryana

Karnal

CC/364/2017

Raghbeer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M. Modern Automobile - Opp.Party(s)

Nirmal Singh

03 Dec 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                             Complaint No.364 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 02.11.2017

                                                         Date of decision:03.12.2018

                                                                                       

Raghbeer Singh son of Harphool Singh resident of House no.326 village and post office Staundi Tehsil and District Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                              …….Complainant

                                        Versus

M/s Modren Automobiles, Meerut Road, Karnal through its Managing Director.

        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.    

       

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present   Shri Nirmal Singh Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Sudhakar Mittal Advocate for opposite party.

               

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on 7.6.2017 complainant purchased a Alto K10 VXI car from OP. Prior to purchase of car on 6.6.2017 the complainant visited the OP for finalization of rate of the vehicle. The total price of said car was told as Rs.3,87,481/-including RC charges and insurance. The price of the car was told as Rs.3,44,000/- which is evidence from insurance cover note. There was discount offer of Rs.17000/- in said vehicle and after bargaining less of Rs.3100/- was made regarding carpet and old vehicle of complainant was purchased for Rs.75000/-. After making all deductions an amount of Rs.2,92,381/- remained balance towards the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.2381/- in case to the OP and remaining amount was financed by the complainant. It was agreed that the OP will get issued the RC of the said vehicle from the concerned authorities and owing to this reason, the sale letter, bill and other papers were not issued to the complainant by stating that same are required to be submitted in the office of Registering Authority (M) Karnal and assured that RC will be issued within a period of one month and for that one month period a temporary number was issued to the complainant. Four months have been passed but OP has not provided the RC of the vehicle. The complainant visited the office of OP so many times and requested for issuance of the RC of the abovesaid vehicle but OP always postponed the mater on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to issue the same and raised demand of another sum of Rs.31,000/- from the complainant in a illegal and lawful manner. Due to this act and conduct of the OP complainant has been suffering from great mental pain, agony and harassment hence he is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the OP. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; deficiency in service and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that the price of the vehicle was told Rs.3,87,481/- which includes Ex-showroom price Rs.3,62,973/-, insurance Rs.16,085/-, extended warranty Rs.5039/-, basic kit Rs.2424/-, Temporary RC Rs.500/- and Auto card Rs.460/- total Rs.3,87,481/-. It is denied that the price of the vehicle was told Rs.3,44,000/-. This price of the vehicle was taken for the purpose of insurance by taking IDV of the vehicle as Rs.3,44,000/- and insurance premium was deducted on the IDV. It is further pleaded that the company has offered the concession to the complainant as concession offer Rs.17,000/-, corporate offer Rs.3100/-, old car price Rs.75,000/-, cash taken Rs.2381/- total Rs.97481/-. Amount charged from customer=Rs.3,87,481-97481=2,90,000/-. The complainant handed over the loan cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore Rs.10,000/- was refunded to him. From the above detail it is clear that OP charged the amount if any for temporary RC only not the regular RC of the vehicle as alleged. The documents of the vehicle were got given to the complainant as he was to deposit fee for regular RC. It is further pleaded that since the complainant has failed to deposit fee for regular RC on time therefore, he himself responsible for the delay. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 19.07.2018.

4.             On the other hand, OP led no evidence as the same is closed by court order dated 13.11.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The case of the complainant is that on 7.6.2017 he purchased a Alto K10 VXI car from the OP. After all the concessions including price of the old car i.e. Rs.75,000/- the price of the said car was settled at the amount of Rs.2,92,381/- including the charges of Registration Certificate, Insurance, Temporary Number etc. The complainant got the new car financed and remaining amount i.e. Rs.2381/- was paid in cash at the time of purchasing the said car. It was agreed that OP will get issued the RC of said vehicle from the concerned authorities and owing to this reason, the sale letter, bill and other papers were not handed over to the complainant by the OP. Even after a long period of 4 months OP had not provided the RC of the vehicle to the complainant and lastly OP refused to issue the RC and raised demand of another sum of Rs.31000/- from the complainant for that purpose.

7.             On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the price of the car was told Rs.3,87,481/- including Ex-showroom price, insurance, extended warranty, basic kit, temporary RC and Auto card. The complainant handed over the loan cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- and thereafter Rs.10,000/- was refunded to him. The OP never charged amount qua the cost of regular RC but charged only temporary RC. The documents of the vehicle were not given to the complainant as he has to deposit the fee for regular RC online, and only after depositing the regular RC fee the OP can handover the documents of the car to the complainant. The complainant failed to deposit fee of regular RC on time and there is no fault on the part of the OP.

8.             Admittedly, the car in question was purchased by the complainant from the OP. The old car of the complainant was purchased by the OP for Rs.75,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.2381/- and remaining amount was got financed by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant handed over the cheque to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and as per the OP Rs.10,000/- was returned in cash to the complainant. The documents i.e. sale certificate and other documents which are required for the regular RC were kept by the OP for getting the RC issued from the concerned authority. If the OP had not charged the fee of regular RC, then he must have handed over the sale certificate and other documents to the complainant, which are required for the purpose of regular RC. Thus, we are of the considered view that the regular RC is required to be get prepared by the OP, that is why the OP did not handed over the documents to the complainant. The OP is clearly deficient in service.

9.             Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to get issue the regular RC from the concerned authority and same be handed over to the complainant free of costs. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated:03.12.2018

                                                                        President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member