Haryana

Sonipat

CC/309/2015

Narender S/o Dilbahg Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Samta Motors Pvt. LTd. - Opp.Party(s)

J.P. Chhikara

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.309  of 2015.                                                Instituted on:27.08.2015

                                Date of order:18.07.2016

 

Narender son of Dilbag Singh, resident of village Barwani, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.M/s Samta Motors Pvt. Ltd., 119/8 Miles Stone, GT road Karnal-132001 through its Manager.

2.Sundram Finance Ltd. Model Town, near Vodafone Care, Main rod, 110, Ground Floor, Sonepat through its Manager.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. JP Chhikara     Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Rahul Takshak   Advocate for respondent no.1.

           Sh. Anil Sidhar     Advocate for respondent no.2.

 

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that the respondent no.1 got financed the vehicle having Temporary no.HR-99-QF-Temp-0012 with respondent no.2 and thereafter the complainant has purchased vehicle from respondent no.1 for Rs.9,24,888/-. Out of which, complainant has paid Rs.4,50,000/- in cash to respondent no.1.  The respondent no.1 got insured the vehicle from HDFC Agro Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.  The respondent no.1 has issued only temporary number on the date of purchase i.e. 31.12.2013 to the complainant.  The respondent no.1 wrongly against his assurance got insured the vehicle with Reliance Gen. Ins. Co.Karnal under policy no.200532311027392 dated 31.12.2013 valid upto 30.12.2014.   After expiry of 15 days, when the original bill etc. were not issued to the complainant by the respondent, he served a legal notice upon respondent no.1, who informed that the account of vehicle wrongly entered in the account of ICICI Bank, thus, fresh current bill will be prepared and shall be sent to the complainant.  The complainant also contacted the respondent no.2 from where he came to know that the vehicle has been financed with the respondent no.2 on 2.3.2014 in place of 31.12.2013.   The complainant has been running from pillar to post, but he has not received the original bill dated 31.12.2013 and due to this, the registration of the vehicle from the authorities concerned could not be done by the complainant and the complainant has suffered unnecessary mental agony, harassment and huge financial loss. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their separate reply.

          The respondent no.1 in its reply has submitted that the respondent no.1 has not financed the said vehicle through respondent no.2 as there is no concern of respondent no.1 with respondent no.2.  However, it is correct that the complainant has purchased the vehicle make Verna from respondent no.1.  The total sale price of the vehicle was fixed Rs.9,53,343/- and it was settled that the complainant will pay Rs.3,53,843/- in cash within 10 days from the date of delivery of the vehicle and the remaining amount of Rs.6 lacs will be got financed form respondent no.2 within 15-20 days after the delivery of the vehicle.  As per assurance given by respondent no.1, the vehicle of the complainant was got insured from Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. from 31.12.2013 to 30.12.2014.  It was further alleged that as and when the complainant shall deposit the amount of Rs.353343/- and finance amount of Rs.6 lacs within 10 days, the respondent no.1 will hand over the original paper including bill to the complainant, but the complainant failed to do so as he did not make the payment of financed amount to the respondent no.1 despite repeated requests and due to this, the  respondent no.1 did not hand over the original papers to the complainant. Thus, the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  However, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2 lacs on 18.2.2014 after repeated requests and Rs.25000/- on 29.4.2014 and Rs.6 lacs was transferred in State Bank of India in the account of respondent no.1 on 13.3.2014.  An amount of Rs.1,28,343/- is still due against the complainant.  The original bills/papers of the vehicle has not been issued to the complainant.

          The respondent no.2 Sundram Finance Ltd. has submitted that  the complainant got financed his vehicle no.HR-99-QF-Temp.-0012 with respondent no.2 on 13.3.2014. The complainant has paid 15 installments of Rs.15725/- each to the respondent no.2 upto 10.5.2015.  The complainant has not paid any other installment after 10.5.2015.  The respondent no.2 is legally entitled to recover his financed amount from the complainant.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          In the present case, from the reply of respondent no.1, one thing is clear that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2 lacs on 18.2.2014, Rs.25000/- on 29.4.2014 and Rs.6 lacs was transferred in State Bank of India in the account of respondent no.1 on 13.3.2014.  An amount of Rs.1,28,343/- is still due against the complainant.  The original bills/papers of the vehicle has not been issued to the complainant.  The respondent no.1 in its written statement at page no.4, para no.4 has submitted that the complainant did not make the payment of financed amount to respondent no.1 despite repeated requests.  Thus, they did not hand over the original papers to the complainant.

          As per the respondent no.2, the complainant got financed his vehicle no.HR-99-QF-Temp.-0012 with respondent no.2 on 13.3.2014. The complainant has paid 15 installments of Rs.15725/- each to the respondent no.2 upto 10.5.2015 against 48 total installments.  The complainant got financed the amount to the tune of Rs.6 lacs and he has to pay Rs.7,54,800/- including interest.  But the complainant has not paid any other installment after 10.5.2015.  The respondent no.2 is legally entitled to recover his financed amount from the complainant.

 

          The respondent no.1 in their evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/7.

 

          Similarly, the complainant has tendered the affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8.

 

          After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  If the version of the respondent no.1 is taken into consideration that the complainant did not make the payment of the financed amount to them, then why any recovery proceedings were not initiated by the respondent no.1 against the complainant.  Why any legal notice was not issued by respondent no.1 to the complainant.  Why complaint against the complainant was not moved by respondent no.1 before the police authorities and why they have not availed civil remedy against the complainant. 

          This is amply clear that the vehicle of the complainant could not be registered with the concerned registration authority due to non-supply of the bills by the respondent no.1 to the complainant.  Further since the RC of the vehicle in question was not prepared, the insurance also could not be renewed.    As per the complainant, the vehicle was handed over by the respondent no.1 on 31.12.2013 and on the same day, it was got insured through Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. w.e.f. 31.12.2013 to 30.12.2014.

 

          The respondent no.1 has placed on record the receipt of Rs.2 lacs dated 18.2.2014 and Rs.25000/- on 29.4.2014.

 

          It cannot be presumed that without any amount, the respondent no.1 hand over the vehicle to the complainant.   But as per the complainant, he has paid Rs.3,75,000/- plus Rs.6 lacs financed amount to the respondent no.1 and only then the respondent no.1 has handed over the vehicle to the complainant.  So, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 who has not supplied the original papers to the complainant for the purpose of registration of the vehicle with the concerned registration authority.  Accordingly, it is held that it is the respondent no.1 who is liable to pay the delayed penalty charges to the registration authority.  The complainant is only liable to pay the legal charges without any late fees or penalty etc. to the registration authority for registration of his vehicle.  The complainant is also directed to submit all the required documents which are needed by the respondent no.1 for getting his vehicle registered with the registration authority.  It is also directed to the respondent no.1 to get prepare the RC of the vehicle in question from the registration authority and to deposit the delayed penalty amount/fees with the said authority, within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order.

         

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:  18.07.2016