Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/19

Krishan Dayal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s CM auto Sales (P) Liomited , chandigarh Road Rupnagar - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Charanjit Singh Ghai, Adv

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                     

                                                                                               

Consumer Complaint No. : 19 of 24.02.2015

Date of decision               : 05.06.2015

 

Krishan Dayal son of Sh. Bhana Ram, resident of House No. 16, Canal View, Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

 

                                                                             ......Complainant

                                             Versus

M/s CM Auto Sales (P) Limited (authorized dealer of Maruti Suzuki), Chandigarh Road, Rupnagar (Rangilpur), Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

 

                                                                            ....Opposite Party

 

 

                             Complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer

                             Protection Act, 1986

 

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Charanjit Singh Ghai Advocate, counsel for complainants

Sh. Pardeep Mittal Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party

 

ORDER

          MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             Sh. Krishan Dayal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To hand over the registration certificate of the car in question,

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages, for causing mental agony, physical harassment & financial loss,

iii)     To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Maruti Swift ZDI  car bearing Chassis No.746881, Engine No.2454834, Temporary Registration No.PB-12-S-3850 vide receipt No.REC14002420 dated 26.9.2014, from the O.P. At the time of sale of the said car, the O.P. had charged its entire amount, including the registration charges for getting the same registered with the Motor Vehicle Authority and the insurance fee. The O.P. had issued the insurance policy at the time of delivery of the said car and assured him that the registration certificate would be handed over to them within 15 days. He had, time & again, approached the O.P. to get the registration certificate and it kept on assuring that the same would be delivered shortly, but now it has started asking him to pay a sum of Rs.12000/- more, for getting the said car registered. The said act & conduct of the O.P. is wrong, illegal and arbitrary, due to which he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written statement in the shape of affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Chand, HR, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable & is liable to be dismissed under all the circumstances and that the answering O.P. has been unnecessarily dragged into this frivolous litigation, as there has been no deficiency in service on its part. On merits, it is stated that for preparation of the RC, ID proof was required and the complainant was asked to deposit the same within ten days, but he did not deposit the notified ID proof till date, which is mandatory for preparation of the RC. Now the registration charges have been increased by the District Transport Office by 2%.  It is further stated that the complainant had also furnished undertaking before the O.P., to the effect that the O.P. had explained him the formalities for getting permanent registration number and that the O.P. would not be responsible for the registration of the vehicle. There has been, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The complainant may be directed to deposit the notified ID proof required for preparation of the registration certificate alongwith the increased charges, so that the registration certificate could be got prepared. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with costs.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant & some other documents Ex. C1 to C10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Chander, HR, Ex. OP-1 & photocopy of undertaking dated 26.9.2014, Ex. OP-2, and closed the evidence.

 

 5.               We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record of file carefully.

 

6.                It is an admitted fact that the complainant, at the time of purchase of the car in question, had paid the registration charges, prevalent at that time, to the O.P. for getting the registration certificate issued from the Registering Authority. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that due to non-supply of the notified copy of the ID proof by the complainant, the O.P. could not get the car in question registered with the registering authority. To this effect, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had submitted all the necessary documents with the O.P. for the said purpose, including the ID proof i.e. the copy of ‘Adhar Card’ (Ex.C10) at the time of purchase of the said car and there was no reason for him not to supply the same to the O.P. On perusal of the copy of the said Adhar Card, it has been observed that the same was issued in the name of the complainant on 26.3.2012, whereas, he had purchased the car in question on 26.9.2014. It means that he was in possession of the said Adhar Card, much before the purchase of the said car, therefore, there was no reason for him not to supply the copy of the same to the O.P. In order to prove this fact that it had ever demanded a notified copy of the ID proof from the complainant, the O.P. has not placed on record any document in the shape of letter or list of documents, required for registration of the car, thus, it cannot be presumed that the O.P. ever asked the complainant to supply a notified copy of the ID proof, thus, in the absence thereof, the plea of the O.P. that it asked the complainant to supply a notified copy of the ID proof, but he did not supply the same, due to which the car could not be got registered, is not sustainable. Apparently, the delay in registration of the same has occurred due to callous behavior of the O.P. itself, who had not forwarded the case of complainant to the Registering Authority, well in time and thereafter, if, there has been any increase in the registration charges, then, the complainant is not liable to pay the same as he had already paid the requisite charges prevailing at the date of purchase of the said car and the O.P. was not justified in raising the demand to that effect from the complainant. So far as the other plea of the O.P. that the complainant had also furnished undertaking, Ex. OP-2, wherein he had stated that the dealer would not be responsible for the registration of his vehicle, is concerned, the same is also not tenable because once the O.P. had received the requisite charges & documents from the complainant for getting his car registered and even till today, it is ready to get the car registered, provided the complainant pays the 2% increased amount, therefore, the O.P. cannot be allowed to wriggle out from its liability merely on the ground that the complainant had given above said undertaking. In these facts & circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the O.P. has committed deficiency in rendering services and is liable to hand over the registration certificate to the complainant, after getting the car in question registered with the registering authority, without charging any extra amount from him. Due to non-supply of registration certificate by the O.P., the complainant has also suffered a lot of mental agony & physical harassment, therefore, he is also certainly entitled to get compensation on that account alongwith litigation expenses from the O.P.

 

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:-

i)       To hand over the registration certificate of the car in

question to the complainant, after getting it registered with the registering authority, without charging any extra amount, from him,

ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation,

iii)     To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The O.P. is further directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. However, the O.P. will be at liberty to have another notified copy of the ‘Adhar Card’ (Ex.C10) from the complainant, who will supply the same as & when the same is demanded by it.

 

8.                The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 05.06.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.