Punjab

Jalandhar

CC/444/2014

Tejinder Singh Bhatia S/o S Jagminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Prestige Honda - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Sharma

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Ladowali Road, District Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No - 217
JALANDHAR
(PUNJAB)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/444/2014
 
1. Tejinder Singh Bhatia S/o S Jagminder Singh
R/o H.No.848,Urban Estate,Phase-I
Jalandhar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Prestige Honda
Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd.,Paragpur,G.T. Road,through its Managing Director S.S. Lally
Jalandhar
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Jaspal Singh Bhatia PRESIDENT
  Jyotsna Thatai MEMBER
  Parminder Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Sh.Sandeep Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.
 
For the Opp. Party:
Opposite party exparte.
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.444 of 2014

Date of Instt. 18.12.2014

Date of Decision :19.03.2015

 

Tejinder Singh Bhatia, aged about 40 years son of Jagminder Singh R/o H.No.848, Urban Estate, Phase-1, Jalandhar.

 

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Prestige Honda, Lally Motors Pvt.Ltd, Paragpur, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director S.S.Lally.

 

.........Opposite party

 

Complaint under section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

 

Present: Sh.Sandeep Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Opposite party exparte.

 

Order

 

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite party on the averments that complainant purchased the car make Honda Amaze 1.5 SMT vide invoice No.553 from the opposite party on 23.9.2014 for a total sum of Rs.6,82,500/-. After fulfillment of all the necessary formalities and documentation, complainant on the same day paid Rs.1,38,910/- in cash as margin money, which includes charges of insurance cover amounting to Rs.17,939/- and registration fee amounting to Rs.39,477/- for which the opposite party has issued the receipt No.8885 dated 23.9.2014. Opposite party issued insurance policy of the car on the same day i.e 23.9.2014 and provided the temporary certificate of registration bearing No.PB-08-BX(T)-7326, which is valid for 30 days and also assured complainant that they will apply for the RC on that day and deliver the same to complainant before expiry of the temporary certificate of registration. Complainant on the same day applied for a car loan from ICICI Bank Ltd for the remaining amount and on 27.9.2014 an amount of Rs.5,96,700/- was disbursed and duly credited to the account of opposite party. Hence total billing amount plus charges of insurance and registration fee was paid to the opposite party and nothing was due towards complainant. Complainant regularly inquired from the opposite party regarding the RC of the said car, but the opposite party could not be able to give the reasonable reply and put the matter on one pretext or the other, which is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After several visits and so many requests of the complainant, the opposite party told the complainant that they have failed to deposit the registration fee in time and now the road tax has been enhanced from 6% to 8% from 7.10.2010, so complainant has to bear and deposit the enhanced charges amounting to Rs.12,362/- for RC of the said car. Complainant has already deposited the entire bill amount & charges including insurance and RC charges on 27.9.2014 and nothing was due, but the opposite party intentionally and deliberately has not deposited the road tax and applied for the RC in time. Complainant is not liable to pay any enhanced RC charges because delay in depositing the road tax and applying the RC of the said car is on the part of opposite party. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to deliver the RC of the car to him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Opposite party did not appear inspite of notice, as such it was proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and heard learned counsel for the complainant.

5. The dispute involved in the present case is regarding non supply of certificate of registration by the opposite party. It is in the affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA that he purchased the car from the opposite party on 23.9.2014 and on the same day paid Rs.1,38,910/- in cash as margin money which includes charges of insurance cover amounting to Rs.19,939/- and registration fee amounting to Rs.39,477/- for which the opposite party issued receipt No.8885 dated 23.9.2014 Ex.C2. Counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party was required to deposit the registration charges with the State Government on the same day online but it failed to do so and in the mean time registration charges was increased from 6% to 8% and due to this reason the opposite party started demanding the enhanced charges from the complainant and refused to issue the RC. Notification dated 28.6.2014 issued by Government of Punjab Department of Transport provides as under:-

"That no vehicle which is sold by the dealer and any native of Punjab shall be allowed to be driven/taken out of the showroom unless the temporary registration number is allotted to the vehicle by the dealer after getting the registration fee, HPA fee and the Motor Vehicles Tax(in lump sum) as fixed by the Government from time to time. The Motor Vehicles Tax and fee etc received from the purchaser/owner of the vehicle shall be deposited online system into the State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day by the dealer".

6. So as per above notification, the dealer is required to deposit the registration charges online into State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day. Since the opposite party failed to deposit the registration charges on the same day, as such the complainant can not be blamed, if subsequently the State Government has enhanced the registration fee from 6% to 8%. Non depositing of registration charges on the same day as per the above notification, constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties is directed to obtain and deliver the RC of the car in question to the complainant without any delay after receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expense. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room

 

 

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

19.03.2015 Member Member President

 

 
 
 
 
[ Jaspal Singh Bhatia]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Jyotsna Thatai]
MEMBER
 
[ Parminder Sharma]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.