Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.03.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,27,000/- ( Rs. Two Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand only ) to the complainant as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that on persuasion of opposite party no. 2 he has booked a Maruti Wagon R on 17.07.2009 by depositing a sum of Rs. 1,000/- vide annexure – 2. Thereafter complainant submitted a cheque for the sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- in favour of Aparna Housing Construction Ltd. a sister Concern of Vau’s Automobile as instructed by sales consultant on 18.07.2009 and was assured of the delivery of the car on 20.07.2009 on payment of balance amount after adjusting the allowed concession to ex – government servant and other price of his old Maruti car which was assessed to the value of Rs. 40,000/-. The aforesaid receipt and evaluation receipt has been annexed as annexure – 3 and 4 of the complaint petition.
It is further case of the complainant that on 20.07.2009 he has paid balance of Rs. 39,012/- and the car was delivered on 21.07.2009 together with all necessary documents, Insurance sheet, sale certificate etc. with maintenance service record and extended Maruti booklet and the old Maruti car was handed over to value head Manager and new Maruti Wagon R was received. The photocopy of the aforesaid documents have been annexed as annexure – 5 series.
At the time of receiving aforesaid documents the complainant was assured by the company sale consultant that the tax token receipt will be given within 2 or 3 days and owner book will be given in the shape of smart card.
The complainant has asserted that despite passage of months when the aforesaid documents and registration no. was not given to him despite his best effort then he requested vide annexure – 7 to the opposite party no. 2 B but without any success.
The complainant has further asserted that due to non supply of registration no. and owner book etc. within time as per assurance of opposite party, the complainant has to suffer much because when he approached after a month and requested for supplying of registration no. and owner book then the opposite parties did not pay heed to his request and later on they refused to talk in this regard.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 a written statement has been filed in which it have been stated that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of party and he has not done any transaction of sale purchase with opposite party no. 1.
However, several facts have been denied by opposite party no. 1 and it was submitted from the counsel of opposite party no. 1 that as the complainant entered into contract for purchase of vehicle with opposite party no. 2 and paid consideration to them hence there is no liability on opposite party no. 1.
On behalf of opposite party no. 2 and 3 an objection have been filed in which it is stated that they have not assured the complainant to provide owner book in the shape of smart card within a week rather they had assured the complainant that they would make their effort to provide owner book in minimum time.
They have further asserted that they made their best effort for obtaining the owner book and registration no. of the vehicle from office of the District Transport and as soon as the aforesaid documents were supplied by D.T.O. to them i.e. opposite party no. 2 and 3 they immediately handed over to the complainant.
They have denied the allegation of willful delay in supplying the aforesaid document to the complainant.
On behalf of complainant a reply to written statement/ objection of opposite parties has been filed in which the allegation made by the complainant in his complaint have been repeated.
It has also been stated that under the provision of rule 42 of the Central Motor vehicle rules the dealer of the vehicle holding a trade certificate is duty bound to deliver a Motor vehicle to a purchaser with registration whether temporary or permanent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The fact asserted by the respective parties have been narrated briefly in the forgoing paragraphs.
It appears from the record that on 21.07.2009 the Maruti Car was handed over to the complainant and his car was registered as BR 01AS 2297 after two months i.e. on 23.07.2009.
It is needless to say that for want of registration the complainant about 75 years of age had suffered much because U/r 39 of Central Motor Vehicle rules 1989 he was not able to drive vehicle without registration number.
It is an admitted fact that there is a gap of two months between delivery of the car as well as date of registration.
It is true that the registration no. and the owner book are being issued from D.T.O. of the respective District but it is the duty of opposite parties to impress upon the authorities to issue registration no. etc. within a stipulated period because such attitude results in suffering for simple citizen specially old and infirm who purchase the car or any vehicle.
The opposite parties cannot be absolved from their responsibilities in providing necessary paper including registration etc. to the purchaser or to the complainant in view of U/r 39, 42, 43 and 44 of the Central Motor Vehicle rules 1989.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that the aforesaid conduct of the opposite parties definitely constitutes deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
Hence we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and for mental harassment etc. within the period of two months from the of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/- till its final payment.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
