Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/322

Bupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sandhu Automobiles Pvt.ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gagagndeep Singh

03 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 322 of 13.05.2015

Date of Decision            :   03.06.2016

 

Bhupinder Singh s/o Sh.Amrik Singh aged about 45 years r/o House No.144, village Babarpur, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

M/s Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,Link Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director.

…Opposite party

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS. BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.S.S.Heer, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh.Chandan Kaushal, Advocate

 

PER G. K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Bhupinder Singh against OP by claiming that he purchased car of make D’Zire VDI White color on 26.9.2014, to which, temporary registration No.PB-10-EQ-Temp-5797 was allocated by Op. In the column of description of vehicle, OP has not mentioned the bill number. Certificate of registration is of date 26.9.2014 and details of the costs received by the complainant were mentioned in the temporary certificate of registration as under:-

Ex.Showroom Price                                             Rs.6,70,738/-

Insurance                                                              Rs.22,906/-

Temp.Number                                                      Rs.    100/-

R.C.                                                                      Rs.38,500/-

Accessories                                                          Rs. 4,900/-

                                                        Total            Rs.7,37,144/-

Finance Amount                               (-)                Rs.5,00,000/-

MM Amount                                                        Rs.2,37,144/-

Process Fe                                         (+)               Rs.  3,131/-

Down Payment                                                    Rs.2,40,275/-

Booking                                            (-)                Rs.   2,000/-

                                                          Total           Rs.2,38,275/-

Consumer Offer Gold Coin

                                                          (-)                Rs.  7500/-

                                                          Total           Rs.2,30,775/-

Even Certificate cum Policy Schedule with validity from 26.9.2014 to 25.9.2015 was supplied by mentioning identification number of the vehicle. That certificate issued by the National Insurance Company Limited, D.O.V, Ludhiana on 26.9.2014. Premium of Rs.22,902/- was charged from the complainant in respect of the insurance of the vehicle. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, OP supplied the certificate cum policy schedule and assured that the copy of bill, R.C. and insurance policy will be supplied very shortly as soon as the RC will be received from D.T.O.Office. Entire expenses/charges in respect of R.C. have already been received by the OP. The said vehicle was got serviced from Op on 6.10.2014, 29.11.2014 and 20.12.2014, but despite that bill, RC and insurance policy have not been supplied to the complainant. Complainant had been regularly visiting the OP for procuring those documents, but despite that those documents have not been handed over and that is why after serving legal notice dated 16.4.2015 upon OP through counsel, this complaint filed by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP. Prayer made for directing OP to supply the complete bill, RC and insurance policy. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony along with interest also sought.

2.                In written statement filed by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is false and vexatious; complainant has no locus standi and illegality not   committed by OP. Rather, complaint alleged to be filed for maligning the reputation     of OP. It is claimed that complaint has been filed by concealing the material facts. In fact, the car was delivered to the complainant on 26.9.2014. Partial amount for the sold car was cleared on 7.11.2014 and 28.11.2014. The complainant was called upon several times to make the payment regarding the outstanding amount. Complainant himself directed OP not to apply for the registration certificate of the vehicle because he wants to fetch some desirous number. Complainant was informed that charges for registration of the vehicle has been increased w.e.f. October 2014, due to which, he will have to pay additional amount of Rs.11,300/-, besides the earlier existing amount of Rs.38,500/-. Complainant was informed that Government revised the rate from 6% to 8% on the value of the vehicle. Complainant delayed the payment and had not deposited the outstanding amount and as such, complaint is not maintainable. Complainant filed complaint against OP with the Police Station Malaud, due to which, officials of OP has to visit the said police station. There complainant came in drunkard condition and abused and manhandled  the Branch Manager of OP. Even the complainant slapped the   Branch Manager of OP in the presence of Police. Matter in that respect was reported to the police by Sh.Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh.Kanwar Pal r/o Railway Colony, Ludhiana c/o Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Complainant was taken into  custody by the police and after getting the medical examination of the   complainant conducted, he (complainant) was found in drunkard condition. Then police vide DDR No.18 dated 21.1.2015 initiated the proceedings against the complainant under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from OP. The values mentioned in the form are just estimated values and those values are not acknowledged to be correct by Op. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C10 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh.Ajaypal Singh Sandhu partner of M/s Sandhu Automobiles Pvt. Ltd and even tendered documents EX.R1 to Ex.R3 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments alone addressed. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Perusal of Ex.R3, the copy of Kalandra prepared under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. reveals that on complaint of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar s/o Kanwar Pal, DDR No.18 dated 21.1.2015 was lodged with the P.S.Maloud for initiating  proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the complainant. In Ex.R3 itself it has been mentioned that the complainant in drunkard condition was found abusing the public in loud voice and that is why, medical examination of the complainant was got conducted. The plea taken in the written statement in this respect as such is correct that actually the complainant was challaned under the proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. This complaint was filed on 13.5.2015 and as such, it can be said that this complaint filed after proceedings of that case. Even if that be the position, despite that controversy in this case stand on independent footing than that of those proceedings conducted through Ex.R3.

7.                As per para no.4 of complaint and corresponding para no.4 of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant, certificate issued by the National Insurance Co.Ltd., D.O.V, Ludhiana on 26.9.2014 has been received by the complainant. If that be the position, then it is not a case, in which, insurance documents            were not supplied to the complainant.

8.                Ex.C2 does not bear the signature of any of the officials of OP, but it bear the signature of complainant Bhupinder Singh alone and as such, certainly Ex.C2 is not a bill, but is an estimate of the bill. It is the case of the complainant that bill has never been supplied to him and OP even has failed to prove that bill was supplied to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Ex.R1 is the copy of Ledger Account of complainant showing that amount of Rs.7,29,142/- has been paid by him as the price of the purchased vehicle alongwith charges of the number plate and those of extended warranty and temporary number charges etc. Complainant though kept on visiting the premises of OP while getting the services of the vehicle availed as revealed by job card slips Ex.C8 to Ex.C10, but he never raised the protest qua non receipt of the bill or of insurance policy or of RC and as such, it is contended by counsel for the OP that contents of complaint are false. That protest was not bound to be recorded by the complainant at the time of getting services of the vehicle conducted because services of the vehicle provided for rectifying the mechanical defects. In the job card slips, mention                            qua non receipt of the documents not bound to be made either by the officials of OP or by the complainant because these job card slips to provide details qua the rendered mechanical services to the satisfaction of the customer. Customer to record the protest in these job cards slips in case, mechanical rendered services found unsatisfactory by him. So, non record of the note qua non receipt of the bill, insurance policy and RC in Ex.C8 to Ex.C10 alone will not prove that bill or insurance policy or RC not received by the complainant from Op.

9.                Ex.C5 is the copy of insurance cover note issued by the National Insurance Company. It has been produced by the complainant himself and as such, virtually the complainant has received the insurance documents and plea taken in the complaint in that respect is false.

10.              Certainly, at the time of delivery of the vehicle, temporary registration number to be issued and the same was issued on 26.9.2014 is a fact borne from contents of Ex.C1. That temporary registration number issued to the vehicle under the provisions of Motor Vehicles to  remain in force for 30 days, after period application for allotment of permanent number to be submitted. It is not in dispute that charges of Rs.38,500/- was received by OP from the complainant for providing permanent registration number. Temporary registration number was assigned to the complainant through temporary certificate of registration, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.C1 and as such, deficiency in service in matter of allocating the temporary registration number is not there.

11.              As per letter Ex.R2, in case road tax revised by the Government, then liability of paying the road tax will be of customer. Signature of Sh.Bhupinder Singh are there underneath  Ex.R2 and as such, virtually the complainant was informed that in case, road tax stood revised by the Government, then same will be payable by him. It is on account of this that amount of Rs.11,300/- debited to the account of complainant as RC difference charges against entry of 1.4.2015 as revealed by Ex.R1. If vehicle in question was received by the complainant on 26.9.2014 as pleaded by the complainant, then complainant must not have kept on waiting until 16.4.2015 for obtaining the certificate of registration of permanent number from OP. So, in view of the term of Ex.R2, complainant was bound to pay the additional charges of registration due to enhancement of the registration fee by the Government. That fee not shown to be paid and as such, liability of OP to get the permanent registration certificate and provide same to the complainant, was not there.

12.              If the original bill not available with OP at present, then carbon copy of the bill must have been available with OP and as such, OP must provide the duplicate bill to the complainant, so that he can get the permanent registration certificate of the vehicle from the Motor Vehicles Licensing Authority. Besides, Forms No.21 and 22 along with ‘No Objection Certificate’ in matter of registration of the vehicle will be required by the complainant from Op and as such, OP must provide these documents. In case, registration of the vehicle not got done with permanent number, then complainant bound to suffer and as such, in view of non issue of any notice separately by OP to the complainant in the matter of charging extra fee of road tax, it is obvious that complainant has suffered mental harassment. Even if the insurance cover note has been provided to the complainant, but despite that other documents required for registration has not been provided by OP to the complainant and as such, on account of mental harassment and sufferings, complainant entitled for compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- more. OP has not got the permanent registration number of the vehicle arranged for the complainant and as such, OP must refund the received amount of Rs.38,500/- on account of registration charges.

13.              In case of Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.& another vs. Jaspal Singh-2013(3)CPC-214, it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that documents of registration etc., are essential for enabling the complainant to ply the vehicle and as such, certainly complainant entitled for the duplicate bill along with the above referred documents, so that he may get the vehicle registered with Motor Vehicles Licensing Authority. Even in case of Chander Shekhar & another vs. Jagdamba Sales Corporation and another-2010(2)CPC-249(H.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla), it has been held that after receipt of the full payment by dealer, the latter bound to supply the necessary documents required for registration of the motor vehicle. Due to non supply of these documents to the customer, the latter becomes entitled for compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses. This proposition of law kept in mind while making the above observations.

14.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, present complaint partly allowed in terms that OP will issue the duplicate bill to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and will also issue Forms No.21 and 22 under the Motor Vehicles Act and other documents as are required and essential for getting the vehicle registered from the Motor Vehicles Licensing Authority. Even 'No Objection Certificate’ in matter of registration of the vehicle with Motor Vehicles Licensing Authority will be issued by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Even OP will pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment and suffering of the complainant. Litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OPs. Payment of amount of compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses be also made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. OP also directed to refund the received amount of Rs.38,500/- on account of registration charges within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, it will be the responsibility of complainant to get the registration certificate from the Motor Vehicles Licensing Authority by applying to DTO/RTO concerned. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

15.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                              (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                               President

Announced in open Forum

on 03.06.2016

Gurpreet Sharma