Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/342

Puneet Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Lakhvir Mohd ADv.

31 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 342  of 21.05.2015

Date of Decision            :   31.05.2016

 

Puneet Aggarwal son of Sh.Vijay Aggarwal, resident of C-437, Phase-I , Urban Estate, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

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

…Opposite party

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :           Sh.Lakhvir Mohd,, Advocate.

For OP                           :           Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant purchased one Nissan Terrano XVD (THP) from OP on 17.8.2014 vide invoice dated 22.8.2014. At the time of purchase, an obligation was got by the Op to get prepared the registration certificate of the car. Complainant paid Rs.68,136/- for making payment of taxes. That payment of Rs.68,136/- made through receipt No.354 dated 18.8.2014. At the time of receipt of that payment, Op duly assured the complainant that they after contacting the concerned department in time will obtain the registration certificate. Further, payment of Rs.37,625/-    was made by the complainant through receipt No.353 dated 18.8.2014 to Op for getting the vehicle in question insured. At the time of purchase of the car, the road tax was payable @6%, but thereafter, w.e.f.7.10.2014, the same stood enhanced to @8%. If OP  failed to pay the road tax in time, then complainant is not    responsible for the increased percentage of the amount of road tax. Despite receiving the entire amount of taxes, Op has not got the registration certificate issued with ulterior motive and as such by claiming deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant has sought compensation of Rs.1 lac. Litigation expenses of Rs.12,000/- also claimed with directions to OP to get the registration certificate of the car issued as agreed and assured by OP. Legal notice through registered post dated 17.1.2015 even was got served by the complainant through Sh.Lakhvir Mohd.Advocate.

2.                          In written reply filed by OP, it is pleaded that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action; complaint filed on false and concocted facts and that the complainant is not a consumer because the vehicle in question used for commercial purpose. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is admitted that complainant was disclosed as if registration certificate will be applied by the OP after receipt of full and final payment including delayed interest charges. Complainant was to pay the road tax and other fee as applicable on the date of depositing of registration file with the DTO office. Complainant failed to deposit the amount in time. Complainant after purchase of the vehicle on 17.8.2014, took the delivery of the same vide challan No.243 dated 17.8.2014. It was informed to the complainant that in case of disapproval of the loan, he(complainant) would have to pay the interest @24% p.a., if the same paid between 8 to 30 days after purchase. However, in case the amount paid after 31 days onwards, then interest chargeable would be @36% p.a. The price of the vehicle was  Rs.12,19,775/-. Insurance amount was Rs.37,625/-, but Rs.11,549/- was charged for extended warranty. Rs.18,000/- was charged as logistic charges. In this way, total sum of Rs.13,55,085/- was charged from the complainant. Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as advance vide cheque No.013877 dated 16.8.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank as margin money. Rs.2,07,775/- vide cheque No.13878 dated 20.8.2014 drawn on ICICI Bank was also paid by the complainant. Insurance amount of Rs.37,625/- was paid by the complainant vide cheque No.13879 dated 20.8.2014; but Rs.68,136/- was paid vide cheque No.013880 dated 20.8.2014. Rs.11,549/- was paid as extended warranty charges. The vehicle in question was got financed by the complainant from HDFC Bank and the finance amount of Rs.9,66,769/- was received by the OP on 2.9.2014. The balance amount was received in cash on 6.9.2014. As finance amount was received after grace period of 7 days and as such, complainant was liable to pay the interest on delayed payment as agreed by the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle.   Complainant  aspired to get the number of his choice (special number) i.e.9966. For getting this special number, the customer has to get the permission from DTO Office and only thereafter, special number is to be punched by DTO. Op called upon the complainant to bring the permission from DTO Office and deposit the interest on late received finance amount, but complainant kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. In the meanwhile, charges of taxes stood increased because Government enhanced the registration fee of vehicle from 6% to 8%. This fact was duly conveyed to the complainant. Complainant instead of submitting or paying the increased tax fee, filed this false and frivolous complaint. OP cannot be held guilty or liable for the acts and wrongs done by the complainant. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents annexure -C1 to annexure –C5 and thereafter, he closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Sh.Indermohan Pal Singh, Law Officer of OP tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and thereafter, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A of Sh.Deepak Manohar, Clerk of OP and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments addressed and heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Bone of contention remains as to whether the entire payment made in time or as to whether due to delay in payment of finance amount, complainant liable to pay interest as alleged by the OP?

7.                Annexure C1 is the invoice, vide which, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 22.8.2014. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that amount of Rs.68,136/- was paid by the complainant to OP vide cheque qua which copy of receipt produced on record as annexure C2. This amount admittedly paid as registration charges for getting the vehicle in question registered from the Motor Licensing Registration Authority. As this amount vide annexure-C2 was paid to the OP and as such, certainly it was the responsibility of OP to get the vehicle registered. Annexure C2 reflects as if the amount was paid through cheque dated 20.8.2014 drawn at ICICI Bank. There is no dispute regarding the paid insurance amount of Rs.37,625/- through annexure C3. Delivery of the vehicle took place on 17.8.2014 is a fact borne from delivery challan Ex.R2 and copy of delivery gate pass Ex.R3. Insurance of the vehicle got done as reflected by insurance cover note Ex.R4. The delivery of the vehicle was hassle free to the satisfaction of the complainant is a fact borne from satisfaction note Ex.R5.

8.                Ex.R6 is the RC Declaration Form, through which the terms on which the registration of the purchased vehicle was to be got done were acknowledged by the complainant. Through Ex.R6, complainant acknowledged that in case of any error occurring in RC, OP will not be responsible because he has checked the portal/Punjab Government Transport website. However, as per term No.2 of Ex.R6, permanent registration number of the vehicle was to be applied by the OP after 10 days of full and final payment to the last rupee being credited to the account of complainant including the delayed interest charges by customer/bank/DMA. This term no.2 of Ex.R6 governs the case of the parties. In Ex.R8, the certificate of registration, it is mentioned as if date of registration of the vehicle is 18.8.2014. This in fact also is the date on which payment of registration charges of Rs.68,136/- made by the complainant to OP through receipt annexure C2. Through Ex.R2, the complainant agreed that in case, the finance company from which, the loan to be contracted for the vehicle in question by the complainant, disapproves loan for any reason, then responsibility to pay the unmentioned amount will be of the complainant. Complainant through Ex.R2 agreed to pay the interest @24% p.a. from the date of delivery in case payment not made during period from 8 to 30 days. Further, through Ex.R2, complainant agreed to pay interest @36% p.a. from the date of delivery, in case payment made after 31 days onwards from the date of delivery. So by keeping in view the term No.2 of Ex.R6 and undertaking suffered by the complainant through Ex.R2, it is made out that liability to pay the full and final amount of sale price is of complainant. Rather through Ex.R6, complainant undertook the responsibility to get the full and final payment to the last rupee credited to the account of OP. Unexhibited copy of statement tendered on 19.1.2016 by OP shows as if Rs.9,63,769/- were received by the OP in the account of complainant from HDFC Bank Limited on 2.9.2014, due to AMT credit. That amount was received through NEFT in the name of the complainant against RO No.29275441 is a fact borne from the copy of that statement of account. Rather, this statement of account is the copy of ledger account of complainant maintained during the period from 1^st April 2014 to 31^st March, 2015. In view of this, submissions advanced by counsel for OP has force that last rupee of the sale price was credited in the account of the complainant on 6.9.2014 because entry of 4.9.2014 of credit of amount of Rs.32,500/- as the balance AMT of Nissan Terrano vehicle also exist in the copy of ledger account. Besides, entry of 6.9.2014 is to the effect as if Rs.36,242/- credited in the account of the complainant as cheque bounce and balance AMT charges. In view of last rupee being credited to the account of complainant on 6.9.2014, responsibility of OP was to apply for permanent registration number after 10 days of 6.9.2014. However, that registration got done on 18.8.2014 is a fact borne from Ex.R8 and as such, deficiency in service is not on the part of OP, but it is on the part of complainant, who failed to abide by term No.2 of Ex.R6. Rather, in view of delayed payment, complainant liable to pay interest @36% p.a. because the final payment of the vehicle got financed by the complainant, credited in the account of the complainant by OP on 6.9.2014, despite the fact that delivery of the vehicle took place on 17.8.2014. So, virtually the complainant seeking relief after committing default in making payment as per agreement. A person who himself is the wrong door is not entitled to any relief and as such, complaint merits dismissal.

9.                Even if Ex.C4 is undated, despite that the above discussion of ours enough to hold as if fault lay with complainant in not paying the full and final sale price amount in time, owing to which, Op remained unable to apply for permanent registration number.

10.              As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Babita)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:31.05.2016. 

GurpreetSharma