BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complaint Case No : 422 of 2010 Date of Institution : 12.07.2010 Date of Decision : 18.05.2010 Sumeet Sarup Sehgal s/o Sh.Anand Sarup Sehgal, r/o # 803, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1] Maruti Suzuki India Limited, through its Regional Manager, Regional Office at SCO No. 39-40, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 2] Maruti Suzuki India Limited through its Managing Director, Registered Office at Plot No.1, Phase-III-A IMT Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. 3] M/s Berkley Automobiles Ltd., through its Managing Director, Regd. Office at Plot No.27, Indl. Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. 4] Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, Town Hall Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Incharge SDM. 5] State Transport Authority, through its Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh, Sector 18, Chandigarh. .…..Opposite Parties CORAM: Sh.P.D. GOEL PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by: Sh.Neeraj Sobti, Counsel for complainant. Sh.Parmod Kumar, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2. Sh.Sandeep Jasuja, Counsel for OP No.3. Sh.Jatinder Singh, Govt.Pleader for OP No.4 & 5. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased a brand new Maruti Swift Dzire VDI BS IV car on 24.5.2010 from OP No.3, after making payment of Rs.6,22,116/-, which was got insured from M/s National Insurance Company vide Policy at Annexure C-2. At the time of sale on 24.5.2010, OP No.3 had issued Temp. Regn. No. CH 38(T) 2157, which was valid upto 23.6.2010. It was alleged that on 7.6.2010, when after completing all the required formalities, the Complainant approached the OP No.4 for getting the car registered, he had come to know that the car in question could not be registered as OPs No.1, 2 & 3 did not get the said model registered with OP No.5, so as to enable the owners to get their vehicles registered. Thereafter, the Complainant made repeated visits to the OPs and tried to persuade them to register the car in question, but of no avail. On persistent request of the Complainant, OP No.4 gave in writing that the approval letter of Swift Dzire VDI BS IV has not yet been received from Secretary, STA, U.T. Chandigarh so, the car in question could not be registered (Annexure C-6). During all this process, even the temporary regn. Number of the vehicle expired on 23.6.2010. Hence, this complaint. 2] Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 3] OPs No. 1 & 2 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the Complainant paid the sale consideration to OP No.3 and took the delivery of the vehicle from them. It was submitted that vehicle in question was launched by the answering OPs in the year 2008 and approval in respect of which was granted by OP No.5 on 25.2.2008 vide Annexure A-3. Thereafter, the swift car was upgraded and accordingly approval was sought from OP No.5 on 23.2.2010. However, the said application was reported to be misplaced and the application along with complete documents for approval was again filed with OP No.5. Unfortunately, due to delay and latches on behalf of OPs No. 4 & 5, the approval for registration was finally granted on 2.8.2010, for which the answering OPs were not at all responsible. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 4] OP No.3 in its reply, while admitting the core facts of the case, pleaded that the Complainant purchased the car in question on 24.5.2010, which was upgraded model of Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire Car, so launched in the year 2008 regarding which approval was granted by OP No.5 on 25.2.2008. When the Complainant came to purchase the upgraded model, he was duly informed that this particular model has yet to be approved by OP No.5 and there may be some procedural delay. Since there was no bar in selling such a car, the answering OP sold the same to the Complainant. Thus, the answering OP cannot be blamed in any way. Rest of the material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 5] OP No.4 in their reply, while admitting the fundamental facts of the case, pleaded that whenever any new model is launched by the company, the approval of the same is taken by manufacturer company from Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration through State Transport Authority, Chandigarh and thereafter, the intimation regarding the same is supplied to the answering OP by OP No.5. It was submitted that the approval was received by answering OP on 2.8.2010 from OP No.5 and the Regn. No. CH-01-AC-1466 was issued to Complainant on 9.8.2010. Rest of the material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 6] OP No.5 in their reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case, pleaded that State Transport Authority has acted as per the procedure. The application for model approval was received from the representative of the company on 21.05.2010. The formalities were completed on 18.6.2010. The file was sent to Home Secretary for approval on 15.7.2010, which was received back on 20.7.2010. The final approval letter was issued on 2.8.2010 and on the same day, its copy was sent to Registering and Licensing Authority. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint. 7] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 8] We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 9] As is evident from the zimini order dated 02.05.2011, the complainant has conceded that the car in question stands registered but there was a delay of one and half month, so OPs No.1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment and litigation. OP-1 has raised the plea that whenever any new model is launched by the Company, the approval of the same is taken by the manufacturer and thereafter the intimation regarding the same is supplied to OP-5. That the approval was received by OP-4 on 02.08.2010 from OP-5 and thereafter the registration No.CH-01-AC-1466 was issued to the complainant on 09.08.2010. So it can legitimately be concluded that the liability to pay the compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation costs to the complainant is of OPs No.1 to 3 and not the OPs No.4 and 5. It is an admitted fact that there was a delay of one and half month in getting the car registered and therefore, the OPs No.1 to 3 are liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation costs. 10] As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs No.1 to 3are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 11] The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | Sd/- | Sd/- | May 18, 2011 | [Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | [P.D. Goel] | | Member | Member | President | ‘cm’ | | | |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | |
