CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.808/2008
SH. KISHAN PAL
S/O SH. RAMESH CHAND
R/O 196 NEW ARYA NAGAR,
GHAZIABAD, U.P.-201001
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S TATA MOTORS
BOMBAY HOUSE, 24 HOMI MODI STREET,
FORT BOMBAY-01
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
- M/S VIVEK AUTOMOBILES LIMITED
A-1 MOHAN CO-OP. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
THROUGH ITS MANAGER/PROPRIETOR
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 15.07.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Tata Sumo Victa LX from OP-2 on 30.07.2008. On 01.08.2008, OP-2 gave a temporary number and promised to send original Registration Certificate(RC) and permit within 15 days. After expiry of one month, complainant again demanded the original papers of the vehicle but he was again issued a temporary number which was valid for the period 12.09.08 to 11.10.08. On 12.09.2008 complainant also lodged a complaint on the Customer Care number of OP-1 and brought it to the notice of OP that even after expiry of 45 days, the permit and the original RC and service book has not been handed over. OP-1 sought 10 days time. After 10 days complainant again contacted OP-1 and OP-1 informed that the complainant has already received service book. It is stated that the complainant has not received service book, permit and the RC.
It is further stated that on 20.10.2008, complainant again contacted OP-2 and also OP-1 on their Customer Care Service but nothing was done rather he was threatened. A legal notice was sent and the same was not replied. It is stated that he has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and he suffered on account of non-providing of these documents. Complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs as he could not use the vehicle in the absence of aforesaid documents.
OP-1 in reply took the plea that complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle in question was used for commercial purpose. It is further stated that there is no cause of action as there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Cause of action, if any, was against OP-2. It is further stated that OP-2 informed OP-1 that the complainant has already been delivered original permit and it is further stated that RC is lying with OP-2 and complainant can take delivery at any time but complainant has never turned up to take the delivery of RC. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
On behalf of OP-2 Sh. Sanajay Thakur filed vakalatnama but thereafter nobody appeared for OP-2 and OP-2 was proceeded ex parte on 17.08.2009.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for OP that complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. It is significant to note that complainant is not a Transporter. Complainant has specifically stated in replication that he has purchased the vehicle in question to earn his livelihood. Since the vehicle was purchased to earn livelihood, complainant is a consumer.
It is proved on the record from the testimony of the complainant that he has not received the permit and the RC. OP-1 has stated that the permit was collected by complainant but he has not given the acknowledgement. OP-1 has failed to prove that in fact OP-2 has delivered the permit to the complainant. Admittedly the RC has not been delivered yet. It was for OP-2 to send the RC to the complainant. It is unbelievable that the complainant who has approached this Forum and would not approach OP-2 for collecting the RC. It is significant to note that this complaint is filed by the complainant after more than one year of purchasing the vehicle in question. The RC and the permit were not handed over even after service of legal notice. It is significant to note that it was not the duty of the OP-1 to provide the RC and the permit. It was the duty of OP-2 to provide RC and permit. OP-2 has failed to do so. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.
OP-2 is directed to hand over the RC and permit and also pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
