ORDER                                    Dated:  06-12-2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1. Complainant filed this complaint on 27-05-2015 and alleged that  on 13.03.2015 complainant approached OPs for the purchase of a Second Hand Scorpio Car for his personal use. OP1 offered an old Scorpio bearing no. DL 3C AA 3962. The deal was struck at Rs. 2,15,000/- and transfer  of ownership charges were fixed at Rs.2500/-. Accordingly complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,17,500/- was paid after two hours on the same day and a cash receipt against full and final payment was issued to complainant which was prepared by OP2.  OP2 assured complainant that he would get the said vehicle transferred in the name of the complainant within10 days from the date of delivery.  Complainant took the delivery of the said vehicle from OP and a receipt of delivery of vehicle was prepared by OP2.  Complainant signed all the necessary documents such as form no. 29 and 30 for the transfer of ownership of vehicle and provided all the necessary documents.  The said vehicle was got insured by OP on 13.03.2015. OP did not get the said vehicle transferred in the name of complainant within the period assured by OPs  i.e. 10 days.   Complainant sent letter to OP1 on 15.04.2015 through speed post and apprised  the OP about the aforesaid facts and requested them to return his money along with interest and take their vehicle back from the complainant but OP did not respond and complainant sent another reminder on 20.04.2015 but OP did not respond again.   Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not settling the claim accordingly he prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs. 2,17,500/-  along with interest till realization , Rs. 1,00,000/-  as compensation for mental agony with  litigation cost. 
2. In reply, OP submitted that as per the contractual terms and conditions the complainant paid the total cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 2,15,000/- and took the delivery of the vehicle on 13/03/2015 and the contract stood finalized and completed by both the parties.  On the persistent requests from the complainant, OP2 agreed to help the complainant in getting the ownership transferred for a nominal service of Rs. 2500/- and it was made clear by the OP2 that complainant shall pay all the expenses/ charges to the transport department.    OPs further admitted that on the top of the receipt the amount of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the complainant to OP1 after the transfer ownership rights but complainant himself  did not come forward to visit the transport authority for completing the transfer formalities and in the meanwhile vide  order dated 08-04-2015 issued by transport department, the registration   of vehicles or fitness certificate to any diesel vehicle more than 10 years old is put on hold. The contents of the complaint are false, frivolous and  concocted  hence denied emphatically. OP2 never promised to get the

vehicle transferred within 10 days as alleged or received Rs 2500/- (transfer fees) as alleged. OPs denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy costs.

3. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e. copy of cash receipt (Ex CW1/1), copy of delivery receipt (Ex. CW1/2A),copy of RC (Ex  CW1/2B) , copy of  postal receipt and tracking repor (Ex.CW1/3) , copy of letter dated 20.04.2015 along with postal receipt and tracking report (Ex CW1/4) (colly).
4. In support of reply, OPs filed affidavit  of  Sh. O.P. Kathuria (General Manager) (Admn) along with documents i.e. copy of office order dated 08-04-2015  (Ex. RW1/1)
5. Both the parties filed their written arguments.
6. We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to be considered are as under:-

   (a) Whether complainant is a consumer?

   (b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

   (c) Relief?

7.  In reply OPs admitted that on 13.03.2015 complainant purchased a second hand scorpio car amounting to Rs. 2,15,000/- and took the delivery of the vehicle. Hence complainant is a consumer.

8.  Looking to the substance of the complaint, the purchased vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant by the transport authorities.  Mere perusal of the cash receipt ( Ex CW1/1) and  copy of  RC (Ex CW1/2B)  the vehicle was sold and delivered in a perfect working condition and it was checked thoroughly by the complainant. The delivery receipt (Ex. CW1/2A) dated 13.03.2005 clarify that delivery of vehicle was taken from Lyallpur

      Emporium , Main Market, Greater Kailash , C/o OPs in perfect working condition and its documents are correct as seen  and  checked thoroughly by the complainant. It also clarify that complainant was fully responsible for its maintenance , accidents , road taxes, police challans , offences and any kind of  misuse of vehicle after taking the delivery.

8.  The Hon’ble State Consumer Redressal Commission, West Bengal  vide order dated 02.12.1993 passed in S.C. Case no. 238 /A of 1993 held that       “ after having purchased the car the complainant cannot raise any dispute as to the defects in relation to the car or to the physical conditions of the car as her purchase totally based on as is where is basis.”  It is pertinent to mention herein that OPs is simply an intermediary   and it cannot be held as responsible for the transfer of the vehicle in the name of complainant due  to changed rules by Transport Department subsequent to the purchase of the vehicle.

9.  Looking to the above facts and circumstances  we are of the opinion that deficiency on the part of OPs is not proved and complaint is dismissed accordingly.

10. Both the parties will bear their own cost.

     11. Copy of the order made available to the parties free of cost as per law.

    File  be consigned to record room.

Announced on………