1.                     Present complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as ‘the Act’)  has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that  he purchased one Tata Spacio from the Ops on 12.12.2006 for a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and receipt of Rs.2,16,000/- was issued to the complainant whereas the receipt of the remaining sum of Rs.9000/- was not issued to the complainant  and Rs.18,000/- for parking charges of the said vehicle were also  charged from the complainant for six months.   It has been further alleged that the said vehicle was purchased by one Sulakhan Singh son of Sunder Singh R/o Paonta Sahib and got financed with the Ops but he failed to pay the installments and thus this vehicle was captured by the OP No.1.   It has been further alleged that  when the complainant purchased the said vehicle from OPs, they assured the complainant that the documents of transfer/registration and NOC etc. will be arranged by the Opposite parties within one month.  But despite repeated visits & requests of the complainant, the Ops failed to provide the requisite documents enabling the complainant to get the said vehicle transferred in his name.  It has also been submitted  that feeling aggrieved by the deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practice by the Ops, the complainant  filed a complaint No.340 dated 26.07.2007 before this Forum which was decided vide order dated 06.10.2008 whereby it was observed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, however, directions were given to the Ops  to arrange and provide the requisite documents for transfer/registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant.   As such, complainant visited many times  to the Ops for collecting the requisite documents but compliance was not done by OPs, hence, the complainant filed execution petition before the Forum and on receiving of certain documents by the complainant on 07.06.2010, the execution petition was dismissed as satisfied.   Thereafter, the complainant approached the concerned Registering Authority alongwith the abovesaid documents and applied for transfer of vehicle in his name but the Authority  refused to accept the abovesaid documents on the plea that the said documents are meant for Registering Authority at Karnal and not for Ambala or Naraingarh.   As the registered owner of the  said vehicle i.e. Sulakhan Singh had already expired, therefore, the affidavit  of his legal heirs in the shape of NOC was also required which was obtained and  handed over to the complainant.  But the said affidavit of the legal heirs of Sulakhan Singh supplied by the Ops to the complainant was in favour of Magma Finance Ltd. mentioning therein that ‘we are unable to pay the installments of the said vehicle to the finance company and we have no objection if the said vehicle is transferred in the name of finance company i.e. ‘ Magma’ meaning thereby that the NOC was in favour of M/s Magma and not in favour of the complainant.  It has been further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops many a times with the request to supply the affidavit in the shape of NOC in favour of the complainant instead of M/s Magma Finance and to supply the correct documents for registration at Naraingarh as the complainant in whose favour  the  registration of the vehicle is to be effected is resident of Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. But the documents were not provided by the Ops and lastly refused on 12.08.2010.  Hence, the complainant has submitted that the Ops are deficient in providing services to the complainant and  have also committed unfair trade practice and prayed for  issuing a direction to OPs to supply correct documents in respect of vehicle in question concerning to Registering Authority at Naraingarh, District Ambala and affidavits regarding N.O.C. of the legal heirs of late Sh. Sulakhan Singh in favour of the complainant instead of Ms. Megma Finance alongwith compensation & litigation expenses as mentioned in the prayer para of complaint.  

2.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts, locus standi  and barred by limitation.   On merits, it has been urged  that  the said vehicle was  purchased by Sulakhan Singh and when he could not pay the installments, this vehicle was willfully surrendered by Sulakhan Singh to opposite party No.1.  Thereafter, the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant on “AS IS WHERE IS BASIS” and as per market practice, the vehicle surrendered to the financial institutions by the defaulting customers are put on auction for recovering the balance of financed amount on “ AS IS WHERE IS BASIS” and the financial institutions provide only those documents which are available with the financial institutions and this condition is intimated and explained in advance to all the prospective bidders/buyers. Therefore at the time of sale, being highest bidder of the surrendered vehicle, complainant was provided original singed documents of Sh. Sulakhan Singh and original RC etc. which were sufficient to get the vehicle transferred in his name but the complainant remained negligent and failed to get the vehicle transferred in his name.

                        It has been further urged by the OP that the “complainant earlier filed a complaint in this Hon’ble Forum and same was decided on 6.10.2008 and this Forum came to conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The operative part of the award dated 6.10.2008 is reproduced herein below:

                        “ Keeping in view the above stated  facts and circumstances , we are of the confirmed opinion that it appears that the complainant was handed over all the requisite documents for transfer/registration of the abovesaid vehicle in his name at the time of purchase of the vehicle by the OPs. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. However, taking a lenient view on the basis of equity and natural justice the OPs are directed to comply with the following directions within the 30 days on the receipt of this order. 

“To arrange and provide the requisite documents for transfer/registration of the abovesaid vehicle in the name of the complainant”.

                        So, in compliance of the Hon’ble Forum’s order dated 6.10.2008, again the requisite documents were supplied to complainant on 7.6.2010 before the Forum in the execution proceedings though the original borrower/owner Sulakhan Singh died on 27.11.2007, even then the entire documents were again procured by OP from legal heirs of late Sulakhan Singh who were 12 in number as LR’s and the complainant, after being satisfied, tendered a statement  before the Forum that he has received all the documents and is satisfied with the compliance and prayed for withdrawal of execution being fully satisfied. In this way, the required documents for transfer of vehicle have been provided twice to the complainant but the complainant is negligent on his part in getting the vehicle transferred in his name and there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

3.                     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, the counsel for the OPs  tendered affidavit  Annexure RX alongwith documents Annexures R-1 to R-4  in evidence and closed the same on behalf of Ops.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record very carefully.  At the very outset, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint on the same cause of action as agitated in the present complaint and the same was decided by this Forum on 06.10.2008 holding that “we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  However, taking a lenient view on the basis of equity and natural justice the OPs are directed to comply with the following directions within the 30 days on the receipt of this order. 

“To arrange and provide the requisite documents for transfer/registration of the abovesaid vehicle in the name of the complainant”.

                        Thereafter, an execution petition for compliance of the said order was also filed by the complainant/DH  wherein he had made a  statement that the decree holder has received  No Objection Certificate, Affidavit of owner’s legal heirs, Form 29 (two), Form 30(two), photocopy of legal heirs and original registration certificate from the counsel of the JDs and further stated that  he being fully satisfied with the compliance does not want to pursue more with the execution petition. Thus the execution petition was dismissed as withdrawn being fully satisfied vide order dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure R-3)

                        Now, in the present complaint, the grievance of the complainant is that the NOC (Annexure C-3) so provided by the Ops/JDs during the pendency of execution petition was in favour of Registering Authority, Karnal whereas it might have been in the name of  Registering Authority, Naraingarh, District Ambala as he is resident of Shahzadpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala and because of which the vehicle is not being transferred.

                        After hearing the counsels for both the parties and going through the record, we have come to the conclusion that the present second complaint is not maintainable on the same cause of action since the controversy involved in the matter had already been decided by the Forum vide order dated 06.10.2008.  Moreso, the execution petition filed by the complainant/DH  for getting implementation of the said order has already been dismissed as withdrawn being fully satisfied on the statement of the complainant/decree holder. Further, if the decree holder/complainant was having any grievance of inadequacy of documents so provided by the JDs in the execution petition for registration of  the vehicle, then he  might have asked for the requisite documents (as alleged in the present complaint) during the pendency of the execution petition and at this stage, it would not be justifiable to issue any direction to OPs to again provide documents since the matter on the same cause of action has already decided by this Forum vide order dated 6.10.2008 specifically holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, we are of the firm view that the present complaint filed by the complainant on the same cause of action which has already been decided by this Forum is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to concerned parties, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT:  05/03/2015