Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by Opposite parties NO.1 & 2 is directed against the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.106 of 2009 filed by respondent No.1/complainant was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and appellants/OPs were directed to handover all the relevant documents for transfer of the vehicle in the name of complainant alongwith Form NO.28 (No Objection Certificate) and to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant who was intending to purchase a car approached OP-2 who showed him one Hyundai Accent Car bearing registration No.DL-7C-A-5052 and told that the said vehicle was owned by the OP-2 who was willing to sell the same and Complainant agreed to purchase the vehicle for a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- from the OPs. OP No.2 demanded full and final payment from the Complainant for handing over the physical possession of the vehicle to which he agreed . The Complainant paid Rs.1,97,000/- to OPs and a sum of Rs.5000/- was kept by him on the condition that it would be paid to OPs on their providing “No Objection Certificate” and other relevant documents. The OPs received the amount of Rs.1,97,000/- from the Complainant and issued receipt dated 21.01.2007. It was told to him that OP-3 would get the NOC from the Registering Authority, Delhi and would hand over the same alongwith other relevant documents for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the Complainant. The OPs delivered the physical possession of the vehicle to the Complainant and he had to spend huge amount on the accessories and other minor repairs of the vehicle to make it road worthy. He visited the office of the OP No.1 several times with the request to hand over the NOC and other relevant documents for transfer of the vehicle, as he was facing great hardships in plying the same as there was police checking in Chandigarh and Panchkula area but OPs put him off on one pretext or the other. The Complainant also wrote number of letters and reminders to Ops on 15.01.2008 and 19.09.2008 but Ops did not pay any heed to his request. A number of telephonic calls to Ops also failed to get any tangible result. He then got served legal notice dated 11.11.2008 upon the Ops calling upon them to hand over the NOC and other relevant documents for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the Complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment to him but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum 4. Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs 1 & 2 seeking their version of the case but they refused to accept the summons and nobody appeared on their behalf before the District Forum to contest the complaint in person or through counsel, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte. OP NO.3 was served through substitute mode of service by way of publication but it also did not appear and suffered ex parte proceedings. However, subsequently OP-3 sent reply by post inter-alia stating therein that the vehicle in question bearing No.DL-7CA-5052 was sold by him to Shree Balaji Hanuman Motors, Partners Pandit Ji and Rishi Kumar, Office No.47, Express Market Basement, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad, UP and at the time of handing over the possession of the vehicle in question, the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, NOC, sale letter and Agreement to sell and other documents related to the vehicle in question were handed over to them and since the day of purchase, the vehicle in question was in their possession and after selling the above said vehicle, the OP No.3 had no concern of any kind with the vehicle. A prayer was made for the dismissal of the complaint.. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the complainant allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite parties No.1 & 2 have come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants/ OPs is that the service of summons was never affected on them and they came to know about the ex parte order only when they received summons from the execution court. It was further submitted that all the relevant papers regarding the vehicle in question were ready with OPs but the complainant had not come forward to receive the same as he had to pay Rs.5000/- for the NOC. However, the above contentions have been repelled by the learned counsel for complainant who submitted that the NOC and other documents shown to the complainant were not complete in all respects and OPs were very well aware of the complaint pending in the District Forum but they deliberately chose not to contest the complaint and even after a delay of more than 100 days they had filed the appeal. 7. After going through the record and verification of complaint file of District Forum it was found that the notice of complaint was sent to OPs at their registered office, business place as well as residential address but they refused to accept the summons and did not appear before the District Forum to contest the case and suffered ex parte proceedings. Thereafter, certified copies of the impugned order dated 30.11.2009 were sent to OPs vide despatch No.2795 and 2796 dated 9.12.2009 at the registered office address of OPs. However, the present appeal was filed on 26.3.2010 i.e. after excluding 30 days for filing the appeal, there was delay of more than 70 days but there is no application for condonation of delay explaining the delay or assigning any reason of delay of 70 days. 8. Now adverting to the merits of the case, it was obligatory on the part of OPs to supply the necessary documents and NOC etc. to the complainant for getting its ownership transferred and plying it on road but OPs failed to supply the documents and as such without documents complainant could not make proper use of the vehicle. Complainant sent written requests through registered post Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 EX.C7 to supply the documents and thereafter served upon them legal notice Ex.C-9 on 11.11.2009 by registered cover through his counsel but OPs did not pay any heed to his requests. Thus, OPs failed to supply the necessary documents to the complainant which amounted to deficiency in service on their part. 9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs had been harassing the complainant for about two years and inspite of the notice and reminders given time and again they did not take any steps to complete the relevant papers required for transfer of the vehicle. Thus, the order passed by the District Consumer Forum qua awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is quite reasonable and justified. In the result, it is held that the appeal is not only time barred but also without any merit. Consequently the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
