Complainant Sandeep Kumar has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) to seek a direction to the opposite party to handover the original Registration Certificate of Car without any extra charges. Complainant has also claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment alongwith loss of business and other costs damages alongwith litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 25.07.2014, he purchased Hyundai X Cent CRDI colour white from the opposite party for Rs.6,94,500/- out of which Rs.3,00,000/- was got financed by him. As per rules and conditions of company, Registration Certificate of Car is to be issued to him by the opposite party. He fulfilled all the formalities for the issuance of the Registration Certificate and also paid registration fees. The car was delivered to him at his resident at Batala by the official agent of opposite party and at that time, the opposite party promised that the Registration Certificate will be given to him within 15-20 days from the purchase of car. He has further pleaded that on 12.08.2014, he went to office of opposite party to take his RC and requested that due to no Registration Certificate, he is unable to drive the car on the road being scared of challan by the police, but the opposite party told him to wait for few days. He again went to the office of opposite party on 29.8.2014 for his first service of car and he demanded his original RC of the car. The officials of opposite party assured him to wait for more time and same will be given to his son. Thereafter, he visited the office of opposite party on 20.09.2014, 10.10.2014 and 29.10.2014 for getting his RC but every time he was sent back with false assurance. He left with no option to report the matter to Police Commissioner at Amritsar City and matter was inquired in presence of both parties. Ultimately, inquiry report was given in his favour by S.H.O. P.S.Sadar Amritsar vide report dated 19.12.2014 and opposite party was held guilty but due to influence of opposite party he was directed to knock the door of the Court. He was ready to bring the matter before court but the officials of the opposite party again started visiting his house with requests to wait for some time as they will discuss the matter with their higher officials but all in vain. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite party had been served through registered cover but none had
come present on its behalf and it was proceeded against exparte vide order
dated 29.1.2016.
4. In exparte evidence complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.
5. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the complainant) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of the ex-parte absence of the opposite party despite the proven dispatch of the summons; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsel for the present complainant. We find that the complainant had purchased Hyundai X Cent S CRDI Model Car from the opposite party vendor on 25.07.2014 (Ex.C9/ Ex.C10) who delivered the car at complainant’s residence at Qadian (Gurdaspur District) with the temporary Registration Certificate # PB02BK TEMP 1524 (valid for 30 days i.e., up to 24.08.2014) and thus was yet to deliver the permanent Registration for which the requisite fee/charges etc (Ex.C6) were collected in the charged cost price of the car, itself. The delivery of the Car at Qadian (Gurdaspur) and also the non-delivery of the permanent R.C. of Car at Qadian (Gurdaspur) do raise the necessary ‘cause of action’ at Gurdaspur and that accords ‘jurisdictional’ admissibility & maintainability to the present complaint at this Forum. Further, we find (from Ex.C2 to Ex.C5) that (somehow) the OP vendor did not apply for permanent registration in time (i.e., within 30 days of purchase date 25.07.2014) not even up to August’ 2014 and in the meantime the registration fee got enhanced by 2% with effect from 01.11.2014 and that the complainant shall not be liable to pay. The delay in applying for permanent registration amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the opposite party vendor and demanding the enhanced fee (resulting from ‘delay’ on its own part) from the complainant does amount to ‘unfair trade practice’ and that for sure, lines up the OP vendor to an adverse award under the statute. However, we (in line with the settled law) are inclined to subject the ‘award’ to the restrictions of ‘moderation’ so as not to cause undue enrichments to the ‘awardee’ and/ or to cast undue excessive ‘distresses’ to the delinquent.
6. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party vendor to discontinue (and also to abstain in future, from indulging in) such like ‘unfair trade practices’ and also to deliver the Registration Certificate of the Car (in question) to the complainant without any extra charges besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of complaint till actual payment.
7. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
April, 12, 2016. Member.
*MK*
