Delhi

North East

CC/47/2022

Rahul Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metro Motors - Opp.Party(s)

01 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.47/22

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Sh. Rahul Sharma S/o Sh. Rajveer Sharma R/o H.N. E-677, Jagjeet Nagar, Pushta No.3, Main Road, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.     2.	Metro Motors Through it’s owner Sh. Bitto Chaudhary   Mr. Javed Salesman in Metro Motors   Both having Showroom/office at: A-13, Plot No.70, Pushta No.1, Main Pushta Road, New Usmanpur, Delhi-110053	Opposite Parties

 

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

02.03.22 11.11.22 01.02.23

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

                                                                    ORDER

     Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that  Complainant  purchased a scooter from Opposite Party on 09.03.20 for a sum of Rs. 53000/- in cash and Rs. 15,000/- as replacement of old bike amounting to Rs. 68,000/-. The scooter in question was insured by Liberty General Insurance on 28.03.20 bearing policy no. 2012200101198028664100000 on 11.03.20. Opposite Party delivered the scooter having engine no. EG4HK 3506797 chassis no. MD626EG47K3H46875 with temporary no. DL 5STC 0174 and Opposite Party also assured Complainant to register the scooter in RTO authority on 31.03.20 and gave a delivery receipt having no.  7029 dated 11.03.20. On 31.03.20 Complainant enquired Opposite Party about registration of scooter but Opposite Party replied that he could not registered the scooter because of lockdown as it was imposed on 23.03.20. Since then the Complainant asked the Opposite Party about registration but Opposite Party never paid any heed to the request of Complainant. The Complainant stated that he has no papers of the scooter showing the ownership other than cash receipts given by Opposite Party and in case of challan by traffic police also he has no papers to show his ownership. After so much time Opposite Party did not register his scooter. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to get the scooter registered before the concerned RTO Authority and for Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties to contest the case despite service of notice on 16.03.22. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 31.05.22.

Ex-parte evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and we have also perused the file.  The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Parties did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to get issue the Registration Certificate from the concerned Registering Authority of the scooter in question to the complainant within the two months of receipt of this order. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation charges with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 01.02.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President