BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.215 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 15.05.2018

      Date of Decision: 26.02.2020

Shri Arshdeep Singh S/O Paramjeet Singh R/O H. No.11-A, Bank Colony Road, Model House, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Cargo Motors Private Limited, 40- G. T. Road, Opp. Police Line, Jalandhar, Punjab 144001 Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. Nakul Kohli, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Suteekshan Samrol, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant had booked a Honda Activa 3G on 25.07.2016 and as per the demand of the OP, deposited the advance amount of Rs.6875/- vide receipt No.RC/4805 dated 25.07.2016 and Rs.1500/- vide receipt No.RC/4806 dated 25.07.2016. On 28.07.2016, after receiving intimation from OP, complainant deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.49,830/- by taking the Loan from Capital First Ltd. Honda Activa 3G DLX, which was delivered to the complainant on 28.07.2016. At the time of delivery, the OP asked to complainant to deposit the charges for insurance policy and complainant told that he has already deposited the amount of Rs.6875/- and Rs.1500/- on 25.07.2016 against receipt, but the OP told the complainant that amount was for registration certificate of the vehicle and for document charges of the vehicle. On the investigation of the OP, the complainant also deposited the amount for Rs.1487/- for insurance policy. Thereafter, the complainant has been visiting the office of the OP for getting the RC of the vehicle, but the OP have been putting off complainant on one or the other pretext, but did not deliver the RC of the vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that the original RC of the vehicle is required for plying the vehicle. The OP refused to deliver the RC to the complainant on the pretext that the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- more. When the complainant tried to persuade that he had already paid the amount for preparation of the registration certificate and the OP had no right to detain the RC or to raise the illegal demand of Rs.4000/-. Due to this fact, complainant unable to drive the vehicle without registration number.

2.                That due to strict Traffic Rules, the vehicle cannot be drive without registration number and as such, the complainant was going to his office and coming from his office by hiring other vehicles despite having his own vehicle, which was not used by the complainant for want of RC, which was not delivered by the OP. There is unfair trade practice and negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, where-from the complainant has suffered mental agony, tension and harassment due to the inconvenience for which the complainant is entitled for compensation and damages. For that purpose, the complainant also served a legal notice dated 12.04.2018 for redressal of his grievances, but the OP did not consider the same and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to immediately deliver the registration certificate to the complainant and further, OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and further, OP be directed to pay litigation charges.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed a written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and further averred that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. It is further alleged that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has failed to make the finance company namely Capital First Limited as party in the instant complaint and further submitted that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. It is further averred that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The adjudication of the present complaint will require recording of evidence as such a numbers of documents and the statement of the witnesses are required to settle the controversy between the parties and further submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum because the complainant has opted and purchased for several other chargeable products and services from the OP at the time of purchasing the above said vehicle like graphics, accessories and their fittings, extended warranty, Teflon coating etc. That an amount of Rs.1500/- has been debited to the complainant account on account of filing and processing fees, which was payable by the complainant as agreed with the complainant. The complainant has also misrepresented the facts to this Forum that after making payment of Rs.6875/- and Rs.1500/- on 25.07.2016. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1487/- for insurance policy to the OP, whereas no separate amount of Rs.1487/- has been ever paid by the complainant and further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score and further submitted that the complainant has himself not paid the complete amount of money required for getting the RC of the above said vehicle prepared from the transportation department. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Replication not filed.

5.                In order to prove his case, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

6.                Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very carefully.

8.                In nutshell, the allegations and claim of the complainant is only that he purchased Honda Activa 3G on 25.07.2016 after making a  payment of Rs.6875/- + Rs.1500/-, vide two separate receipts dated 25.07.2016 and also paid balance sale consideration of the vehicle of Rs.49,830/- as well as also paid a cash amount of Rs.1487/- for insurance charges, despite taking a sum of Rs.4000/- for the charges of RC, the OP miserably failed to supply the registration certificate to the complainant. For want of registration certificate, the complainant could not utilize the said vehicle for going to his office or some other places, whereby the complainant suffered mental agony, physical harassment as well as monetary loss and accordingly, filed the instant complaint.

9.                The allegations of the complainant has been meted out by the OP simply taking a plea that the complainant himself is at fault as he did not deposit the required money for getting the RC and further alleged that the complainant opted and purchased for several other chargeable products and services from the OP at the time of purchasing  of the vehicle like graphics, accessories and their fittings, extended warranty, Teflon coating etc. and also alleged that no cash amount of Rs.1487/- for insurance charges was ever paid by the complainant to the OP and further argued that the complainant has suppressed the material facts like not paying the remaining balance amount as well as getting other accessories items from the OP and as such, for want of this, the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

10.              We have sympathetically considered the version of both the parties and find that the complainant admittedly paid the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.50,306.15/- as per retail invoice Ex.C-5. Apart from that retail invoice, there is a Booking Form placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-4, if we go through the said document known as Booking Form Ex.C-4, then we say that the vehicle was got booked by the complainant, after paying the amount of Rs.6875/- as well as Rs.1500/- against receipt Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and further the OP itself brought on the file Booking Form Ex.OP-1, wherein the price of the vehicle is shown as same as in the invoice i.e. Rs.50,306/-. Apart from that the Sales Manager of the OP mentioned in the said Booking Form Ex.OP-1 the charges received from the complainant i.e. Rs.4000/- for RC and Rs.1488/- for insurance. Apart from that he has also mentioned the other charges received from the complainant and in total Rs.9774/-, means the OP has received the amount more than the amount mentioned in the receipt Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 i.e. Rs.6875/- + Rs.1500/- i.e. Rs.8375/-, it means the OP also get some cash amount from the complainant, no doubt in the said Booking Form Ex.OP-1, the OP has shown balance amount Rs.1700/-, but it is not clear from the said Booking Form how the amount of Rs.1700/- is still balance towards the complainant and similarly, the OP has also brought on the file an other document Ex.OP-2, wherein so many cuttings and over writing has been made by the OP just to meet the balance amount of Rs.1700/- towards the complainant. So, this document is doubtful document and shows it has been prepared and manipulated by the OP later on. No doubt, the OP has also brought on the file some other receipts, whereby some articles were purchased by the complainant, but if purchased, then the payment of the said bills was obviously made by the complainant separately, if not made, then the word credit is to be mentioned on these bills, but that word is not having thereon. So, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no balance amount could be proved by the OP, towards the complainant, rather the OP despite getting Rs.4000/- as RC Charges as shown in the Booking Form  Ex.OP-1, miserably failed to supply the copy of RC after getting it prepared from the District Transport Office since the day of purchase i.e. 28.07.2016, till today, which is grave negligence on the part of the OP, which is not tolerable from such like a firm, who is dealing with the general public. So, accordingly, we find that the OP should be punished by way of heavy compensation and ultimately, we came to conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is proved and complainant is entitled for the relief.

11.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to get prepared the registration certificate of the vehicle in question from the concerned authority and handover the same to the complainant within one month from the date of order, failing which the OP will pay the charges of Rs.200/- daily to the complainant till the delivery of copy of the RC to the complainant and further, OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which includes the cost of litigation. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Karnail Singh

26.02.2020                                        Member                          President