Punjab

Sangrur

CC/589/2014

Jagdish Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Padam Cars - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ramit Pathak

23 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    589

                                                Instituted on:      21.10.2014

                                                Decided on:       23.10.2015

 

 

 

Jagdish Rai S/o Brij Lal Gupta, R/o Gupta Trading Company, Old Grain Market, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             M/s. Padam Cars Pvt. Limited, Ranbir College Road, Sangrur authorised showroom of Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Limited through proprietor/partner.

2.             Chevrolet Sales India Limited, Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol 389351, Dist. Panchmahal, Gujarat India.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For OP No.2              :               Shri  G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Jagdish Rai, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one  Chevrolet Beat Diesel car from Op number 1 on 3.4.2014 and at the time of delivery, the OP charged Rs.4,38,390/- in full and final payment from the complainant including the insurance and RC preparation charges. It is further stated that the OP number 1 charged Rs.5,60,221/- on account of price of the car, Rs.32,407/- on account of RC, Rs.13,950/- on account of insurance i.e. total Rs.6,06,578/-, out of which, the OP number 1 deducted Rs.2000/- on account of cash discount, Rs.27,000/- exchange bonus, Rs.3,000/- on account of agriculture discount and lastly Rs.1,20,000/- on account of old Zen car, of which the Op number 1 issued a rough bill to the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that thereafter he visited the office of OP number 1 and requested them to get the RC prepared within time, but they replied that the bill is not ready, as such, the RC was not got prepared.  Thereafter, there was a kidney transplant operation between the wife and the daughter in law of the complainant in the month of July, 2014 , but due to non availability of the RC the complainant had to hire the taxi. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant received a text message from one of the employees of the OP number 1 that if you need the RC immediately, then visit the OP number 1 and get it instantly and when the complainant visited it, then the OP number 1 demanded Rs.3360/- more from the complainant, as such the complainant paid the said amount to OP number 1 against receipt number 3018 dated 13.10.2014, but inspite of that the RC was not prepared by OP number 1.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to get prepared the RC of the vehicle of the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed qua the OP number 2 on the ground that nothing has been claimed against the OP number 2 and there is no privity of contract between the OP and the complainant. The sole case of the complainant is that the OP number 1 had not supplied the registration certificate of the vehicle in question  and the OP number 2 is not at all responsible for that.  It is further averred in the reply that the retailer shall be responsible for its sales and further it is stated that there is no deficiency in service at all on the part of OP number 1.

 

3.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear on 21.01.2015 nor filed reply of complaint as the OP number 1 had already taken four dates for filing the same, as such the defence of OP number 1 was struck off by the order of this Forum.  The OP number filed revision before the Hon’ble State Commission against the order dated 21.1.2015, which was set aside by the Hon’ble Commission with an observation that the OP number 1 shall have the right to produce the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence to be produced by the complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of certificate, Ex.C-2 copy of invoice, Ex.C-3 copy of insurance cover note, Ex.C-4 copy of receipt of payment, Ex.C-5 copy of rough calculation sheet,  Ex.C-6 affidavit, Ex.C-7 copy of print out, Ex.C-8 to ExC-11 copies of OPD slips, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14 copy of prescription slips, Ex.C-15 copy of discharge slip, Ex.C-16 copy of prescription slip, Ex.C-17 coy of discharge slip and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of notification dated 7.10.2014 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit along with annexures and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased one Chevrolet Beat Diesel car from OP number 1 on 3.4.2014 as detailed in the complaint. It is further not in dispute that the complainant had paid the whole of the amount to OP number 1 including the charges for insurance and registration of the car in question.  But, the stand of the OP in the affidavit of Shri Pankaj Sharma, Ex.OP1/1 is that the registration certificate could not be prepared as the complainant failed to pay Rs.3360/- which were due to him and the same were paid only by the complainant vide receipt number 3018 dated 13.10.2014 and thereafter the OP number 1 started the process to get the registration certificate of the car prepared and then the Punjab Govt. enhanced the registration charges to the tune of 2% vide notification dated 7.10.2014, Ex.OP1/2 and, as such, the complainant was asked to deposit the same, but the complainant did not pay the same, as such, the registration certificate of the vehicle could not be got prepared and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1.   

 

7.             After careful perusal of the complaint case file, we feel that the dispute is between the complainant and OP number 1 only and the OP number 2 has nothing to do in this case.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant purchased the car in question on 3.4.2014 from OP number 1 by paying the requisite amount including the charges for insurance and registration certificate etc.  The fact remains that since the complainant had paid the charges for registration certificate only on 3.4.2014, then what was the hitch for OP number 1 for preparing the registration certificate relating to the vehicle of the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that 2% charges were enhanced by the Punjab Government for registration of the vehicle only vide its notification dated 7.10.2014, Ex.OP1/2, then why the OP number 1 kept the file of the complainant pending for a sufficient period of six months for getting prepared the registration certificate of the vehicle in question.   It is further mentioned that the complainant cannot be held liable to pay 2% more  if the registration charges by the Punjab Government have been enhanced vide its notification dated 7.10.2014 as the complainant had already paid the amount for getting the registration certificate prepared on 3.4.2014 to OP number 1.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 1 is deficient in rendering service by not preparing the registration certificate at the earliest and due to which the complainant remained without registration certificate of the vehicle in question.

 

8.             Further there is nothing on file produced by the Op number 1 that they wrote any letter to the complainant to refund/pay Rs.3000/-  to the OP number 1 on account of non submission of the certified copy of the fard.  It is worth mentioning here that if the discount of Rs.3000/- was given by the OP number 1 at the time of purchase of the car, then it must have been given by OP number 1 only after getting the copy of fard from the complainant.  As such, we are unable to accept such a contention of OP number 1.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to supply the registration certificate of the car in question to the complainant.  OP number 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

10.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 23, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member