THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 551 of 2014
Date of Institution : 17.10.2014
Date of Decision : 27.05.2015
Sartaj Singh Sandhu son of Sh. Gurinder Singh Sandhu resident of 95, The Mall,Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s. Ahuja Automobiles, through its Prop/Partner/Manager,Batala Road,Amritsar
Punjab Motor Vehicle Department through District Transport Officer,Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh.D.P.Singh,Advocate
For the opposite parties : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
-2-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Sartaj Singh Sandhu under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Verna car bearing Chassis No. 162314 Engine No. 355319 from opposite party No.1 on 6.6.2014. Complainant has alleged that opposite party No.1 had received full amount of registration to the tune of Rs.58050/- on 23.6.2014 to be deposited with opposite party No.2 for obtaining RC of the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant visited the opposite party several times to get RC of the vehicle but every time opposite party No.1 put the matter under one pretext or the other . Complainant has alleged that due to non supply of registration book, he suffered harassment in the hands of the Traffic police . The Govt. has increased RC charges from 6% to 8% w.e.f. 8.10.2014 which the opposite party No.1 is demanding from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 8000/-. Complainant has alleged that opposite party No.1 had received the amount of Rs. 58050/- from the complainant on 23.6.2014 and deposited the same with the registering authority on 24.12.2014 and thus the fault lies on the part of opposite party No.1 for late deposit of registration charges with the registering authority. Complainant has alleged that he visited the opposite party No.1 many times to receive the RC of the; vehicle , but to no avail. Complainant has further alleged that opposite party No.1 had also agreed to pay Rs. 25000/- as exchange bonus as per scheme of the complainant because the complainant had sold his old car and purchased new car, but opposite party No.1 also failed to pay the same to the complainant.Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 8000/- as difference charged by opposite party No.1 . Complainant also demanded Rs. 25000/- of exchange bonus alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear despite service, as such they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.11.2014.
3. In ex-parte evidence complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14.
4. We have carefully gone through the averment of the complainant , arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant .
5. From the record i.e. averments of the complaint and the evidence produced on record by the complainant , it stands proved on record that complainant purchased Verna Hyundai car from the opposite party which was delivered to the complainant on 6.6.2014 by opposite party No.1 on receipt of full payment. The complainant deposited Rs. 58050/- with the opposite party No.1 vide receipt dated 23.6.2014 Ex.P-18 as registration charges. So it stands fully proved on record that complainant paid the amount of charges of RC of the vehicle with opposite party No.1 on 23.6.2014 . As such the opposite party No.1 was bound to deliver the RC of the vehicle to the complainant. But the opposite party did not deposit the charges for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant with the concerned department i.e. DTO, Amritsar. In the meantime the State Govt. enhanced the tax for registration of the vehicle w.e.f. 8.10.2014 from 6% to 8% of registration charges and the opposite party forced the complainant to deposit the enhanced tax for registration of the vehicle of the complainant amounting to Rs. 8000/- and the complainant had to deposit Rs. 8000/- with opposite party No.1 vide receipt No. 878 dated 24.12.2014 Ex.C-10 and then the opposite party delivered RC of the vehicle to the complainant. The evidence produced on record by the complainant as well as his own deposition on oath through affidavit Ex.C-1and additional affidavit Ex.C-4, remained unrebutted and unchallengd. So it stands fully proved on record that the complainant deposited charges for the registration of his vehicle with the opposite party No.1 vide receipt Ex.P-18 dated 23.6.2014 and the opposite party No.1 was bound to get the RC of the vehicle of the complainant and deliver the same to the complainant within one month because the temporary number allotted to the complainant is valid only for one month i.e. from 6.6.2014 to 6.7.2014. But the opposite party No.1 did not submit th documents as well as the fee with the concerned department i.e. DTO Amritsar and in the meantime the State Govt.enhanced the tax for registration of vehicle from 6% to 8% w.e. 8.10.2014 as per notification Ex.C-11 dated 7.10.2014 and the complainant was forced to pay Rs. 8000/- to opposite party No.1 and the complainant had to deposit Rs. 8000/- with opposite party No.1 vide receipt dated 24.12.2014 Ex.C-10 in order to get the RC of the vehicle as the complainant could not ply the vehicle on road without RC of the vehicle. The late submission of documents as well as late deposit of fee by opposite party No.1 for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant, happened due to fault on the part of opposite party No.1 as they did not deposit the fee with the concerned department i.e. DTO Amritsar on 23.6.2014 or on the next date i.e. 24.6.2014 . So the complainant had to deposit Rs. 8000/- enhanced amount of tax for the registration of the vehicle with opposite party No.1 vide receipt Ex.C-10, due to fault on the part of opposite party No.1.
6. Consequently we hold that this amount is liable to be refunded by opposite party No.1 to the complainant alongwith interest.
7. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also direted to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
8. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
27.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
