Complaint No: 410 of 2018.

                                                        Date of Institution: 01.10.2018.

                                                                  Date of order: 05.10.2023.

Baldev Singh Son of Sh. Jaswant Singh resident of Mohalla Santokhpura, Sri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala and District Gurdaspur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ….............Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                     VERSUS

1.       M/S Global Auto Parts, NH 1, Phagwara Highway, G.T. Road, Paragpur, Nand Farms, Near Connect Office, Jalandhar, Punjab – 144001, through its Authorized Signatory. Pin Code – 144001

2.       Axis Bank, Branch Sri Hargobindpur, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur, through its Branch Manager. Pin Code - 143505

                                                                                                                                                    ….Opposite parties.

                                                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.U.R.Sharma, Advocate.

               For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.

              Opposite Party No.2 exparte.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Baldev Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M/s Global Auto Parts etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased Ashok Leyland LCV on 21.04.2018 from the OP No.1 for the amount of Rs.6,10,000/- and the OP No.1 assured to the complainant that they will prepare the registration certificate of the vehicle in question and handover to the complainant within One month alongwith Route Permit. It is further pleaded that the complainant used to pay his loan installments through his Bank maintained with the OP No.2 continuously and never defaulted in repayment of loan amount. It is alleged that the complainant approached the OP No.1 many times and requested them to handover the R.C. and Route Permit of the vehicle in question to the complainant, but the OP No.1 put the matter pending with one pretext or the other and has not handover the R.C and Route Permit to the complainant. It is further alleged that due to the illegal act of OP No.1, the complainant is unable to ply the vehicle on long routes as R.C and Route Permit are necessary for plying the vehicle on long routes and the complainant purchased new vehicle for earning his livelihood and also financed the vehicle and the complainant was thinking that he can easily pay the installment after plying the vehicle in question, but the OP No.1 illegally has not handover the R.C and Route Permit of the vehicle in question to the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this the complainant is not able to ply the vehicle on long routes and due to the illegal act of the OP No.1, the complainant has caused loss as if the complainant ply the vehicle on the long routes, then the complainant can easily earn Rs.50,000/- per month. It is further alleged that the complainant faced lot of difficulty in plying the vehicle in local routes as Police used to demand bribe money from the complainant and complainant has given lot of money to them for plying his vehicle on local routes. It is further pleaded that the complainant through his Counsel issued Legal notice dated 18.06.2018  to the OP No.1 calling upon them to handover the R.C and Route permit to the complainant, but the OP No.1 did not give any reply to the notice despite due acknowledgement. It is further pleaded that after the expiry of legal notice, the complainant again approached the OP No.1 and made many requests to the OP No.1 to handover the R.C and Route permit of the vehicle in question and on repeated requests of the complainant, the OP No.1 handover R.C to the complainant on 24.09.2018, but the OP No.1 has not given Route permit to the complainant uptill now. It is further pleaded that the complainant is paying loan installments through his Bank account maintained with the OP No. 2 and cause of action also arose to the complainant. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for withholding the R.C. and Route Permit of the complainant and Rs.50,000/- on account Of mental and physical harassment caused to complainant by the opposite parties. The opposite parties may be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief may be granted to the complainant as this Hon'ble Commission deem fit, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.1. It is further pleaded that matter of fact is that the complainant purchased only vehicle from the OP No.1 and the amount has been charged for the price of the vehicle, insurance policy with load body. It is further pleaded that the vehicle is commercial vehicle and it is not the duty of the OP No. 1 to make the R.C and route permit of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that said documents are to be applied by the complainant before the concerned authority and the OP No.1 has no link with the said documents. It is further pleaded that complainant with malafide intention filed the present complaint and the office of the complainant is situated at Jalandhar, Punjab and the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant from Jalandhar and this Ld. Commission at Gurdaspur has not territorial jurisdiction to by the present complaint and that it is pertinent to mention here that the M/s Global Auto Parts has already stopped their business and already lying closed for the period more than 4 years. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 has no link with the R.C and Route Permit. It is further pleaded that there is no law which provides that the opposite party No.1 is bound to give the R.C. and Route Permit of the said vehicle to the complainant.

          On merits, the opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 10.12.2018.

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ramandeep Singh, (Director of M/s Global Auto Parts, Jalandhar) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith reply.

7.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

8.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

9.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased Ashok Leyland LCV on 21.04.2018 and opposite parties had promises to get the R.C. and route permit of the vehicle prepared but the opposite party No.1 handed over R.C. of the truck to the complainant very late and route permit was not got prepared on account of which complainant has suffered huge loss.

10.     Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that vehicle in question is commercial vehicle and since the opposite party no.1 did not receive any amount for preparation of R.C. and route permit in respect of commercial vehicle and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.

11.     Opposite party No.2 remained exparte.

12.     We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the record. To prove the case complainant has placed on record copy of R.C. Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2 and postal receipt Ex.C3. Perusal of copy of R.C. Ex.C1 shows that the said R.C. has been prepared on 11.9.2018 i.e. after five months of the purchase of the vehicle but the complainant has not place on record any receipt or detail of payment to the opposite parties for preparation of R.C. and route permit and as such since the complainant has himself failed to produce any evidence to prove this fact that the opposite parties received any amount for the said purpose and as such opposite parties  were not liable to prepare the R.C. and route permit of the vehicle.

13.     As we such we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs.     

14.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                        President 

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Oct. 05, 2023                                                Member

*YP*