Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/821

M/s Gary Electronics - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dada Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Rupali

30 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                          C.C.No.821 of 01.12.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 30.04.2015

M/s Garg Electricals, Shop No.2, Moti Nagar, Near NHI, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Shri Rajinder Garg, resident of 3123, Sector 32, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      … Complainant

                                             Versus

1.M/s Dada Motors, B-XXIX/526, Giaspura G.T.Road, Opp.Dhandari Station, Ludhiana through its Managing Director/Manager/Director.

2.M/s Nissan Motors Pvt. Ltd., ASV Ramana Towers, 37 & 38, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar-600017, through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …             Opposite Parties

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

Quorum     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Ms.Babita, Member.                                

Present:      Ms.Rupila Mohini, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Vikas Gupta, Adv. for OP1.

                   OP2 ex-parte.

                                                ORDER

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by M/s Garg Electricals, Shop No.2, Moti Nagar, Near NHI, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Shri Rajinder Garg, resident of 3123, Sector 32, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against M/s Dada Motors, B-XXIX/526, Giaspura G.T.Road, Opp.Dhandari Station, Ludhiana through its Managing Director/Manager/Director and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to get issued the R.C. of the vehicle of the complainant and not to demand any increased fee from the complainant besides to pay Rs.2 lakh as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as legal expenses and Rs.22,000/- as counsel fee to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one vehicle i.e. Terrano XLD (Option) car make Nissan bearing temporary registration No.PB-10-Temp-2014-EM-2895 having engine No.E060913 from OP1 on 25.9.2014 vide invoice No.VSLB14000023 for Rs.11,20,271/-. Besides this amount, an amount of Rs.28,133/- was charged for DAP CAP Insurance Policy, Rs.62,913/- was charged for R.C. charges, Rs.18,000/- was charged as landing charges, Rs.17,230/- was charged for accessories. After including all these amounts in the basic price of the vehicle, the total amount was Rs.12,46,533/- and a discount of Rs.46,533/- was given to the complainant and after deducting the discount amount, the total amount payable was Rs.12 lakh, which was paid by the complainant vide three different cheques bearing Nos.620814 dated 12.9.2014 for Rs.2 lakh, 620820 dated 25.9.2014 for RS.3 lakh both drawn on State Bank of Patiala and Rs.7 lakh was paid through RTGS No.SBHYR52014092500400291 dated 25.9.2014 of State Bank of Hyderabad. The detail of the abovesaid amounts written and signed by the Sales Officer of OP1 dated 12.9.2014 is in possession of the complainant. At the time of purchasing the vehicle, the officials of OP1 assured that they will get prepared the R.C within one month prior to the expiry of the temporary registration number. However, after that despite repeated approaches, the Ops failed to get issue the RC and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The temporary registration is already expired and the R.C. is not issued, so the complainant is unable to ply the vehicle on the road being afraid of having been challaned by the police. The complainant sent emails to the Ops and in response thereof, the Ops have sent emails to the complainant, in which, they alleged that the Government has increased road tax vide notification of 7.10.2014 from 6% to 8%, so the complainant will have to pay the amount at the increased rate of road tax, whereas, the complainant had already paid the charges for issuance of RC on 25.9.2014 and if the Ops have not got issued the R.C. prior to increasing the road tax by the Government, then the complainant is not liable to pay the increased amount because the complainant had already paid the amount on 25.9.2014 i.e. prior to the date of increasing of road tax. Such act and conduct of Ops is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OP1 were duly served and appeared through Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate and filed the written reply, whereas, notice of the complaint was sent to OP2 through registered post on 17.12.2014, but the same was not received back and as such, after expiry of 30 days of period, Op2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.28.01.2015 by this Forum. 

4.                In the written reply filed by the OP1, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering Op as no cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the answering Op as the answering Op has not committed any wrong nor there is any deficiency in service on its part. The complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose in the name of his firm and the same is used for the daily work of the firm and hence, the complainant does not come under the definition of Consumer. The allegations raised in the complaint are absolutely false and concocted. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. That for registration of vehicle the documents i.e. residence proof, I.D.proof and bank’s letter regarding the finance is required. The complainant failed to submit identity proof and the letter regarding hypothecation of the vehicle was received by the answering OP on 4.10.2014 and as per the terms and conditions of the company, the registration of the vehicle was to be applied after ten days from receipt of the documents. Now, the Government has increased the tax for the registration of the vehicle from 6% to 8% and this fact was duly conveyed to the complainant but the complainant instead of submitting the documents, filed this false complaint which is liable to be dismissed with costs. Moreover, the answering OP cannot be held guilty/liable for the hike in the registration charges of vehicles, as the registration charges have been increased by the Government. On merits, it is denied that the detail of the abovesaid amount written and signed by the Sales officer of the answering OP dated 12.9.2014. This is a fake document created by the complainant just to put pressure on the answering OP. The answering OP never assured the complainant to get R.C. registered within one month prior to expiry of the temporary registration number of the vehicle. Rather, the answering OP had disclosed to the complainant that the registration of the vehicle could only be deposited after receipt of all the documents of the vehicle and it was delay on the part of the complainant who could not get deposited the relevant documents for registration of the vehicle. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations made in the complaint against the answering OP being wrong and incorrect, answering OP made prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to support the case of the complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Garg, Proprietor of complainant company as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14.

7.                On the contrary, learned counsel for the OP1 order to rebut the evidence of complainant, adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.OP1/A of Sh.Indermohan Pal Singh, its Law Officer, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OP1 and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OP1 has proved on record documents Ex.OP1/1 and OP1/2.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP1 and have also perused the documents on the file very carefully.

9.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an admitted fact on record that the complainant had purchased one vehicle i.e. Terrano XLD(Option)car make Nissan from OP1 on 25.9.2014 and the complainant had paid Rs.62,913/- on account of RC charges to the OP1 in addition to the payment made by the complainant as per Sale Invoice Ex.C2 and on account of insurance charges etc. It is further an undisputed fact on record that till date, the Ops have not supplied the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant.

8.                Perusal of the written reply of the OP1 reveals that there is specific plea of the Op1 that for the registration of vehicle the documents i.e. residence proof, I.D.proof and bank’s letter regarding the finance is required. But the complainant failed to submit identity proof and the letter regarding hypothecation of the vehicle was received by the answering OP on 4.10.2014 and as per the terms and conditions of the company, the registration of the vehicle was to be applied after ten days from receipt of the documents. Now, the Government has increased the tax for the registration of the vehicle from 6% to 8% and this fact was duly conveyed to the complainant but the complainant instead of submitting the documents, filed this false complaint which is liable to be dismissed with costs.

9.                Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has placed on record documents Ex.C1 copy of details of amount which was charged or to be charged and which was issued on 12.9.2014, Ex.C2 copy of sale invoice issued by OP1 to the complainant qua the purchase of the vehicle in question, Ex.C3 copy of insurance policy qua the vehicle in question, Ex.C4 copy of temporary certificate of registration  which was issued for the period w.e.f.25.9.2014 to 25.10.2014, Ex.C5 copy of delivery challan dated 25.9.2014 issued by OP1, Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 copies of emails sent by the complainant to the Ops, Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 copies of payments receipts issued by the OP1, Ex.C11 copy of Car Loan Payment Confirmation and Ex.C12 to Ex.C14 copies of bank account statements.

11.              Perusal of the evidence of the OP1 also reveals that OP1 has placed on record document Ex.OP1/1 copy of letter dated 4.10.2014 issued by the State Bank of Hyderabad and Ex.OP1/2 copy of RC Declaration Form dated 25.9.2014. However, Op1 has not placed on record any letter or any other documents, from which, it could be presumed that OP1 had ever called upon the complainant to furnish the identity proof/residence proof or bank’s letter regarding the finance which the complainant allegedly failed to submit. Rather, it was the obligation of the Op1 to obtain signatures on the documents, which was required to be filled for the registration of the vehicle in question at the time of issuance of the sale invoice and temporary registration certificate of the vehicle and charging the amount of Rs.62,913/- on account of RC charges from the complainant. It is a well settled principle of law that it is the legal obligation of the dealer itself, who charged from the customers on account of registration charges of the vehicle, if Government has increased the rate of tax after receipt of the payment on account of RC charges.

11.              So, it appears that OP1 has failed to discharge its liability to get the registration certificate issued from the concerned District Transport Officer and also failed to deliver the same to the complainant, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP1.

13.               In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow this complaint against OP1 only and as a result, direct the OP1 to deliver the registration certificate of the vehicle in question to the complainant without charging any further amount after getting the same issued from concerned District Transport Officer. Further, Op1 is directed to pay complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/-(five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.3000/-(Three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant is directed to co-operate with the OP1 and to execute the documents, if any, for the preparation of the registration certificate. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

                   (Babita)                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                    Member                         President.   

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:30.04.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.