BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.40 of 2015

Date of Instt. 06.02.2015

Date of Decision :14.10.2015

Manish Chauhan son of Vipan Chauhan R/o 205, Nijatam Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

M/s ANR Motors Pvt Ltd., Castle Toyota, GT Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar through its Director.

.........Opposite party.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.RK Kashyap Adv., counsel for opposite party

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant earlier approached the opposite party for the purchase of the Sedan car body type of Saloon. The quotation was given by the opposite party and the complainant purchased the same on 30.9.2014 vide invoice dated 30.9.2014. At that time temporary number was allotted. The complainant paid the necessary charges to the opposite party and completed all the formalities for getting the registration certificate from the office of DTO, Jalandhar. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant paid the entire fee which was payable to the District Transport Office on 30.9.2014 itself. Since then complainant is following up with the opposite party to get the RC but they are just delaying the matter and demanding more money. It is pertinent to mention that it is incumbent on the part of the opposite party to get the RC from the DTO Office, but they failed to provide the services. The complainant is not able to use the vehicle and is entitled for Rs.500/- per day as compensation in addition to the registration certificate and further entitled for compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to arrange and issue him the registration certificate. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present complaint can not be adjudicated and decided in summary procedure on the basis of documents. The issue involved needs to be proved by cross-examining the complainant as well as the opposite party. The opposite party has already filed civil suit for recovery of Rs.29,596/- against the complainant and the said suit is pending before the court of Sh.Arun Gupta, Civil Judge(JD), Jalandhar and is fixed for 31.7.2015. As such, the complainant can file his counter claim for compensation or loss alleged to have been caused by the opposite party as alleged before the court of Sh.Arun Gupta, Civil Judge(JD), Jalandhar while filing his written statement. The complainant booked car Corolla Altis (Diesel) D4 DGL make Toyota Brand, with the opposite party vide booking form No.6387 dated 27.7.2014 and deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- as initial booking amount. At the time of booking, the complainant was apprised of all the terms and conditions as well as road tax policy of the Punjab Government issued from time to time. The complainant was also apprised of increase in road tax after the booking of the vehicle with the opposite party. The opposite party understood that the complainant has accepted all the terms and conditions and government policy qua road tax rate, as apprised of at the time of booking of the vehicle. The opposite party sold the booked vehicle vide invoice No.INV140000643 dated 30.9.2014 valued Rs.16,85,121/- to the complainant. Besides the purchase price of the subject vehicle the complainant was under obligation to pay road tax as per government norms, handling charges, insurance charges, labour charges and other accessories as selected by the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle. The delivery of the subject vehicle was taken by the complainant on 1.10.2014. The complainant was also under obligation to pay road tax and registration charges of Punjab Government Authorities through the opposite party. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.17,89,900/- vide bank draft No.797717 dated 30.9.20147 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Jalandhar towards the substantial part of purchase price of the vehicle, insurance charges etc., on 1.10.2014. However, the said draft for a sum of Rs.17,89,900/- was credited in the current of the opposite party on 4.10.2014, which was confirmed by the banker of the opposite party on 6.10.2014 because it was Sunday on 5.10.2014. It is significant to mention that the automobile dealer accept and deposit road tax and other taxes as authorized by the Transport Department of Punjab on behalf of the customer for further depositing with the said department online. The road tax and other taxes so collected are deposited online in the account of Punjab Government after completing all the formalities and collecting required documents from the customer, which generally took a week's time in normal course of business at the end of automobile dealer. Hence the road tax and other taxes so collected on behalf of the customer can not be deposited online by the opposite party till the formalities and documentation are completed by the customer/complainant. Moreover, the road tax and other taxes could only be deposited after the confirmation of the payment of the complainant by the bank. The complainant failed to complete necessary documentary formalities for depositing the road tax on behalf of the complainant by the opposite party online, even during the working hours of the opposite party till 6.10.2014. Moreover, the payment deposited by the complainant via demand draft was credited on 4.10.2014 and confirmed on 6.10.2014 by the banker of the opposite party. In the meantime, the Punjab Government, Transport Department, issued notification on 7.10.2014 enhancing the road tax @2% from existing rate 6% to 8% without giving any prior notice to the automobile dealers in Punjab. Thus under the changed circumstances, the complainant was under statutory obligation to bear the burden of additional road tax as enhanced @2% vide Punjab Government Transport Department, notification dated 7.10.2014. Immediately after the pronouncement of the notification dated 7.10.2014, for enhancement of road tax without giving any prior intimation to the automobile dealers or any other public notice in the newspaper, the association for automobile dealers, had took initiative for challenging the said notification burdening the valued customers. However, nothing positive had come out till date. Moreover, online web system for depositing the road tax remained out of order before the pronouncement of notification dated 7.10.2014 for enhancing the road tax. The opposite party vide registered post dated 19.11.2014, advised the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.29,328/- towards difference of road tax caused by enhancement @2% as per the Punjab Government, Transport Department notification dated 7.10.2014 without giving any prior notice to automobile dealer(opposite party) in Punjab. However, the complainant did not adhere to the registered letter dated 19.11.2014 for depositing the difference of road tax of Rs.29,328/- with the opposite party, but the complainant opted to file the present complaint with this Forum. After considering customer building relationship and to avoid hardship to the complainant for plying the vehicle on road without registering the vehicle, the opposite party deposited entire road tax and other taxes amounting to Rs.1,20,864/- including Rs.2000/- as handling charges on 21.4.2015 as calculated @8% in view of the Punjab Government, Transport Department notification dated 7.10.2014. The subject vehicle of the complainant was allotted registration No.PB-08-CZ-6818 on 21.4.2015. After that, the complainant was advised to collect the registration certificate qua subject vehicle after depositing a sum of Rs.29,159/- on various occasions, but all in vain. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and evidence of the complainant was closed by order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/2 to Ex.OP/7 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The facts involved in the present complaint are not much disputed. The complainant purchased the car in question from opposite party on 30.9.2014 and same was delivered to him on 1.10.2014 vide delivery challan Ex.C7. Even temporary registration number was granted to him vide Ex.C1 on 1.10.2014. The dispute between the parties is regarding certificate of registration. The opposite party delivered the certificate of registration to the complainant through his counsel on 1.6.2015 i.e during the pendency of the present complaint. Statement of learned counsel for the complainant in this regard was recorded separately. Notification No.8/1/98-1T2/1107 dated 28.6.2011 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Transport provides as under:-

"That no vehicle which is sold by the dealer and any native of Punjab shall be allowed to be driven/taken out of the showroom unless the temporary registration number is allotted to the vehicle by the dealer after getting the registration fee, HPA fee and the Motor Vehicles Tax(in lump sum) as fixed by the Government from time to time. The Motor Vehicles Tax and fee etc received from the purchaser/owner of the vehicle shall be deposited online system into the State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day by the dealer".

7. So as per above notification, the opposite party was not supposed to allow the complainant to take his car out of the showroom without paying registration charges and necessary documents. It was duty of the opposite party to deposit the registration charges online in State Bank of India on the same day i.e 30.9.2014 or 1.10.2014. Even according to the opposite party, the complainant deposited a draft for Rs.17,89,900/- in the current account of opposite party on 4.10.2014 which was confirmed by the banker of the opposite party on 6.10.2014. The road tax was enhanced by State Government vide notification dated 7.10.2014 i.e after depositing of the amount by the complainant with opposite party vide draft on 4.10.2014. Moreover, as per above notification it was duty of the opposite party not to allow the complainant to move the vehicle out of his showroom without taking registration charges. So opposite party were deficient in its services. The filing of civil suit by the opposite party in no way bar this Forum from deciding the present complaint. The complainant has already received the certificate of registration but same was delivered to him after he filed the present complaint.

8. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of compensation and litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum after the expiry of said period of one month till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

14.10.2015 Member Member President