DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 908
Instituted on: 19.07.2021
Decided on: 18.04.2024
Phool Kali aged about 32 years Daughter of Ram Varan son of Sehdev Pal, resident of Haripura Basti, Near Poppy Di Motor, Thalesan Road, Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Krishan Vehicles Private Limited, Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its Managing Director Manoj Goyal;
2. Regional Transport Officer, (Tehsil Complex), Sangrur.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Sushil Kumar Attri, Adv.
For Opp.party No.1 : Shri Shubham Garg, Adv.
For Opp.party No.2 : Exparte.
Quorum
Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
ORDER
JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties on the ground that complainant purchased Honda Activa 5G scooter from OP number 1 by paying an amount of Rs.72,000/- in cash against bill number 22380 dated 21.02.2020 of Rs.55,794/- in the name of complainant. At the time of purchase, OP number 1 charged Rs.16,206/- on account of accessories, registration certificate and insurance etc. of the vehicle in question. Further OP number 1 gave assurance that the registration certificate of the said vehicle will be prepared within one month. Thereafter, complainant number of times approached OP number 1 and requested them to handover the registration certificate of the said vehicle, but all in vain. Further case of complainant is that later on OP number 1 stated that they have deposited MTV tax for registration of the vehicle with OP number 2 on 20.3.2020 through online mode. But the OP no.2 stated that no amount has been deposited with them by the opposite party no.1. The OP no.2 has not issued the Registration Certificate inspite of the fact that the amount has been deposited by the Op no.1 as stated by the OP no.1 which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as the complainant could not utilise the vehicle without registration certificate. Since OP number 1 had taken the responsibility of the vehicle in question for getting the registration certificate prepared, but the same was not got issued, which is said to be deficiency in service as the complainant suffered lot of mental tension and harassment as he could not ply the vehicle on road. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to issue registration certificate of the vehicle in question or to refund its price i.e. Rs.72,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and has been filed only to linger on the proceedings and that the complaint is not maintainable and has only been filed to waste the precious time of this Commission. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant and OP number 1 has already submitted the documents as well as fee (Rs.3772/-) to the OP number 2 on 16.3.2020 in account number 38050712836 vide reference no.1788055CKM5400739 which has been provided with application no.PB20031663516213 and the lapse is only on the part of the OP number 2. It is further averred that OP number 1 reminded to OP number 2 from time to time and requested to issue the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. Lastly, the OP number 1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
3. In written reply filed by OP number 2, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from OP number 1. It is further averred that since the transaction concerning the payment of MVT/Registration charges in respect of Honda Activa 5G scooter in question purported to have been made by OP number 1 is yet pending at the level of OP number 1, therefore, the approval for the registration of the said Honda Activa in the name of complainant could not be given by the office of the OP number 2. It is further averred that as soon as the transaction relating to the payment of MVT/Registration charges alleged to have been made by the OP number 1 in respect of the Honda Activa sold by it to the complainant is cleared, the same shall be approved to be registered by the office of the OP without any delay. Lastly, OP number 2 prayed that the complaint in question filed by the complainant may kindly be disposed of in the interest of justice qua the OP no.2. The OP no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.08.2022.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/28 copies of various documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties along with their supporting documents with their valuable assistance.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Honda Activa 5G from OP number 1 on 21.02.2020 vide invoice dated 21.02.2020, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2 (Ex.OP1/2). It is further not in dispute that OP number 1 had received the amount for getting prepared the registration certificate from the complainant and accordingly OP number 1 admittedly paid the amount of Rs.3772/- to the OP number 2 for getting prepared the registration certificate of the vehicle through SBI, which is evident from the copy of certificate issued by State Bank of India, Sangrur on 18.3.2021 Ex.OP1/3. Ex.OP1/5 to Ex.OP1/12 are the copies of various emails sent to the OP number 2 for issuance of the pending registration certificates which includes the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. Ex.OP1/5 to Ex.OP1/25 again are the copies of various emails sent by OP no.1 to OP no.2 wherein it is mentioned that the amount has been deducted from bank account, but in the Vahan Portal files were pending due to technical error. Even OP no.2 has not given any reply to these emails. All this evidence is duly supported by the affidavit of Shri Manoj Goyal, MD of M/s Krishna Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Sangrur Ex.OP1/1. The OP no.1 has supported the case by producing Ex.OP1/26 copy of transaction status shows on Vahan Portal wherein payment date mentioned in 16 March2020 at 03:47 PM and bank reference number is also mentioned. Now, the fact remains that the OP number 1 has successfully deposited the amount of Rs.3772/- to the OP number 2 for preparing the registration certificate of the vehicle in question, but there is no sufficient and satisfactory evidence on record produced by OP number 2 that why they did not prepare and issue the registration certificate to the complainant. We may mention that during the present proceedings even the OP number 2 did not choose to issue the registration certificate of the vehicle in question to the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to issue the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. However, we also direct OP number 1 to co-operate with OP number 2 in issuing the registration certificate of the vehicle like requirement of any document etc. the same shall be provided by OP number 1. We further direct OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the OP number 2 within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.
8. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
Pronounced.
April 18, 2024.
(Kanwaljeet Singh) (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)
Member Member President
