BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Vijay Bansal s/o Sh. Kesho Ram, r/o#1394, Phase 2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Royal Car Centre(Regd.) Regd. Office: Show Room No. 12-A, Sector7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019(India) through its proprietor/MD.

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh.Ranjiv Thakur, Proprietor for OP.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a second hand car from OP as per the settled amount of Rs.2,13,000/- besides commission and service tax etc., which was to be paid by 30.01.09. The complainant paid Rs.2,03,000/- as full and final payment of the said car alongwith Rs. 4260/- as commission plus Rs.527/- as 12.36% service tax and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- would be paid by the complainant on delivering the documents of the car, as was promised by OP to give the documents to the complainant within one week. As per the complainant, despite several reminders on telephone/telegram, OP did not hand over the said documents to the complainant. The complainant,  sent several reminders to OP regarding the supply of the documents of car but was never responded by OP.  After that a notice was sent to OP on 20.07.09, which was received by OP, but the said notice was neither responded by him nor was the documents supplied to the complainant. Due to the non-availability of the said documents the complainant was unable to use his car. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed that OP be directed to take back the car in question and refund the amount paid alongwith compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

2.             In their written reply submitted that the complainant took one month to hand over the registration of the said car to OP to obtain the No Objection Certificate and accordingly the NOC was applied in the month of March, 2009 and delay was due to the complainant only. OP further submitted that on 26.06.09 they received NOC from the Registration Authority and the same was intimated to the complainant but instead of paying the balance payment of Rs.10,000/-, a legal notice was sent to OP through the complainant which was replied by OP stating that the documents were ready and may be collected after paying the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. OP further stated that all the papers are ready and the complainant was always informed of the same but the complainant delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and lingered on to make the balance payment of Rs.10,000/-.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, OP has pleaded for dismissal of the complaint with costs as OP is ready to handover all the said documents to the complainant after the balance payment of Rs.10,000/-. 

3.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.             We have heard the parties and have also perused the record. 

5.             Annexure C-1 is the receipt vide which the OPs agreed to sell the car to the complainant and received Rs.10,000/- as earnest money.  The sale was effected on 27.01.09 vide Annexure C-2.  It is mentioned there in that out of the total amount of Rs.2,13,000/- only a sum of Rs.10,000/- remained as balance which was to be paid when the OP transferred the vehicle/registration in favour of the complainant.  When the OP did not do anything in the matter the complainant served a notice dated 20.07.09 on the OP. Prior to that he had been approaching the OP repeatedly but the needful was not done by them.  The contention of the OP is  that infact they had been making efforts to obtain N.O.C. so that the car was transferred in their favour. However, the documents produced by the OP definitely prove that no effort was made in this respect for about 5 months till the application now marked as Annexure R-1 was moved on 19.06.09.  The N.O.C. issued on this application on the same date shows that the processing had taken intime because the N.O.C. was signed by the Registering Authority, Pathankot on 19.06.09 itself. No doubt it was received by the complainant on 25.06.09.  The vehicle was hypothecated with Allahabad Bank as is clear from RC now marked as Annexure R-2.  The endorsement thereon shows that hypothecation was cancelled on 19.06.09 and the N.O.C. was issued in this respect on 25.06.09.  These are the two important documents which were to be procured by the OP but they did not make any effort of moving the application for this purpose till 19.06.2009, which shows that the OPs were deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.

6.             The complainant had purchased the vehicle but the RC continued in favour of the previous owner and therefore the insurance of the vehicle could not be got transferred by the complainant in his own name.  When the insurance was not in the name of the complainant he could not effectively drive the vehicle because if it met with an accident the complainant was not likely to get any claim for the damage on the ground that he had no insurable interest in the vehicle, as the insurance policy was not in his favour.  Due to this reason the complainant remained under mental tension and this harassment was caused to him only due to the inaction of the OP in not immediately moving to the authorities for obtaining the N.O.Cs.

7.             The contention of the OP is that the delay in filing the application was caused as the complainant did not handover the documents to them in time.  It appears to be false ground taken by the OP.  In fact when the vehicle was sold they were themselves in possession of the documents. What ever documents they needed for obtaining N.O.C. should have been retained by them, so that the process was initiated but they did not do anything in this respect.  There is no such letter or request made by the OP to the complainant asking him to handover the documents and no such date has been mentioned by the OP in the written reply or in their affidavit as to on which date they received the documents. On the other hand the contention of the complainant is that infact the documents were already with the OP but they were harassing him and asking him to come time and again for obtaining the N.O.C., which was not even applied for by them for about 5 months.  The delay in issuing the N.O.C. was therefore not due to any such reason of delay in submitting the documents as alleged by the OP.

8.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant was mentally and physically harassed by the OP and he could not use the car properly.  The OP was therefore deficient in rendering proper service to him.  The present complainant therefore succeeds.  The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.25,000/- alongwith costs of litigation of Rs.2200/- and get the car transferred in favour of the complainant within 30 days from today. If the vehicle is transferred and the payment of compensation is made to the complainant within the aforesaid period, then the OP would be entitled to the amount of Rs.10,000/- which the complainant is to pay to them, however if the OP fails to get the vehicle transferred in his favour within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the OP would not be entitled to the said amount of Rs.10,000/- and would be liable to pay the amount mentioned above alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 29.07.09, till the order is complied with. Needless to mention that the complainant would execute the documents required for the purpose as and when asked by the OP.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.