BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

      Complaint No.214 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 04.08.2020

      Date of Decision: 30.09.2024

Dr. Sukrant Yadav S/o Sh. Ram Naresh Yadav R/o Ward No.16, Aggarwal Street, District Mansa, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Lally Motors Service Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Opp. Best Price Paragpur, District Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Nitish Arora, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. Umesh Dhingra, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had purchased vehicle make KIA Seltos from OP on 16.10.2019 for a sum of Rs.13.93 lacs. The OP being dealer and registration authority under Punjab Govt. Rules also charged amount of Rs.78,703/- as registration charges of the said car. After making payment of the said amount to the OP complainant came to know that the OP had written wrong name of the complainant in the provisional RC as Sukhrant instead of actual name Sukrant. The said mistake was brought to the notice of OP. However, the OP showed its reluctance to correct the said mistake. After request by the complainant, the OP agreed to correct the said mistake, which was done on their part. Thereafter, the OP charged amount of Rs.3000/- from the complainant for making correction in the RC which was paid by the complainant on 18.10.2019. The said mistake was on the part of the OP and under due pressure to get his work done from the OP, the complainant paid the said amount, which he was not liable to pay. Thereafter the complainant kept on running pillar to post for receiving the correct RC in his name and has sent numerous reminders and messages to the OP, but to no effect. The complainant had served a legal notice dated 21.02.2020 to the OP, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to make payment of Rs.3000/- charges as correction charges for correcting the RC. Further, OP be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is totally false, based upon wrong and concocted facts and the same has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention. The complainant has concealed the real facts and the frivolous complaint has been filed which is liable to be dismissed with special cost. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP who have never refused or neglected to provide the service in terms of the contract and condition of sale, but the complainant has failed and neglected to respond and the complainant has filed the false and baseless complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a vehicle make KIA Seltos from the OP on 16.10.2019. Ex.C-1 is the invoice showing that he has purchased the KIA vehicle from the OP. Ex.C-2 provisional RC which shows that the complainant had paid the fee of Rs.78,703/- for its registration. The complainant has alleged that in Ex.C-2 the name of the complainant has wrongly been mentioned as ‘Sukhrant’ instead of ‘Sukrant’. This fact was brought to the notice of the OP and request was also made to correct the same, but the same was not corrected despite the request was made number of times to the OP by the complainant. Ex.C-4 is the chatting between the complainant and the official of the OP which shows that since 02.12.2019 till January 2020, the complainant has been asking for RC after correcting the name of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that Rs.3000/- were charged by the OP for making correction in the registration certificate which was also paid by the complainant vide Ex.C-3.

7.                It has been admitted by the OPs that there might be typographical/clerical mistake on the part of the concerned while preparing the provisional certificate. The OP has also denied that this mistake is not an intentional, but the same is clerical human error. It has been denied that the OP has charged Rs.3000/- from the complainant for correction of the registration certificate. The RC has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-6, which shows that the correct name of the complainant has been mentioned in this. Legal notice was issued by the complainant on 21.02.2020 and no reply to this notice was given by the OP. This clearly shows that till 21.02.2020 the corrected RC was not given to the complainant. The provisional RC remains valid for only one month. Under sub rule 1-A of rule 33 of the Punjab Motors Vehicles Rules, 1989 the Govt. of Punjab is empowered to authorize the Motor Vehicles  Dealers for the issue of Registration Certificate of non-transport vehicles on first sale under sub section (3), (5) and (6) of section 41 of the Motors Vehicles Act, 1988. As per term and condition No.5 of the notification dated 28.06.2011, the dealer shall ensure that the purchaser/applicant has furnished accurate particulars in the application for the registration of the vehicle are true and correct and there is no reason for the refusal of the registration of the vehicle. As per condition No.9, no additional charges/amount shall be realized by the dealer from the purchaser of the vehicle for the allotment of temporary Registration No., deposition of online Tax and fee, allocation of registration number and processing of the application as aforementioned.

8.                The chatting between the complainant and the OP and admission of the OP regarding typographical error clearly shows that there is a deficiency in service by the OP in not correcting the name of the complainant within a reasonable time and harassing the complainant for correction. Payment of Rs.3000/- has also been proved by the complainant, but the OP has failed to show as to why this payment was received by the OP in the account of Onkar Singh of KIA company, meaning thereby that the amount was paid to the OP. Hence, there is a clear cut, negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to refund Rs.3000/- as correction charges to the complainant. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room. 

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

30.09.2024         Member                          Member           President