THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 177 of 2015

Date of Institution : 25.3.2015

Date of Decision : 11.09.2015

Paramjit Kumar Talwar, aged about 38 years, son of Sh. Bishmber Nath, resident of New Mahajan Colony, Opposite Gill Palace, Umarpura Road, Batala

...Complainant

Vs.

M/s. CH Motors, G.T. Road, Bye-pass, P.O. Four Fields, Nr.Ryan International School, Amritsar through its Manager/Legal Representative/Authorized person

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : None

For the opposite party : Sh. Amandeep Singh Bajwa,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Paramjit Kaur Talwar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased one car Indica Vista bearing Chassis No. 13248, Engine No. 20882 on 10.8.2014. The total cost of the said vehcile was Rs. 5,60,000/- . The complainant paid Rs. 1,80,000/- as down payment to the opposite party and remaining amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- was financed through Axis Bank,Amritsar vide loan agreement dated 16.8.2014. The opposite party at the time of purchase of the vehicle issued insurance policy of the vehicle to the complainant through Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. A temporary registration No. PB-02-Temp-BW-1424 was allotted to the car of the complainant which was valid from 10.8.2014 to 9.9.2014. The complainant alleges that he has paid Rs. 5,60,000/- to the opposite party which included the cost of vehicle , insurance premium, cost of accessories as well as registration charges. The opposite party has assured to deliver the original RC of the car in question before 9.9.2014 . Complainant has alleged that he had paid the complete amount to the opposite party for the registration of the vehicle and allotment of number. The original bill of the vehicle was retained by the opposite party for the purpose of submission of same to the office of DTO for registration and preparation of RC. Since the month September 2014 the complainant is repeatedly visiting the oppostie party to collect the RC of the car in question but to no avail. The complainant also requested the opposite party to hand over the original bill with refund of amount taken from her as registration charges, so that she can himself apply to the office of DTO for issuance of RC. The opposite party neither refunded the amount nor applied for the issuance of RC in DTO Office . Complainant has alleged that she is unable to drive his car on road due to non registration of vehicle . Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to hand over the original RC by getting it prepared from the office of DTO. Compensation of Rs. 75000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that the total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 5,60,000/-. It was denied that the amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- include the cost of insurance premium, cost of accessory as well as cost of registration charges. It was submitted that complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite party for Rs. 5,43,078/- and Rs. 17176/- for the insurance done by the opposite party and the total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 5,60,254/-. The complainant paid Rs. 1,80,000/- vide receipt No. 1591 dated 8.8.2014 and Rs. 3,75,950/- through demand draft No. 731477 , as such the total amount paid the complainant comes to Rs. 5,55,950/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 4303/- was promised by the complainant to be paid within a week and for this purpose original bills were retained by the oppostie party. But the complainant did not pay the balance due amount of Rs. 4304/- and instead of paying the balance amount filed the present complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavcit of Sh. Chanpreet Singh, partner Ex.OP1, copy of account statement Ex.OP2, copy of retail invoice Ex.OP3.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the opposite party and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant purchased Indica Vista Car from the opposite party on 10.8.2014 bearing Chassis No.13248,Engine No.20882. The total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 5,60,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 1,80,000/- as down payment vide receipt dated 8.8.2014 Ex.C-2 and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- was financed through Axis Bank,Amritsar vide loan agreement dated 16.8.2014. The opposite party at the time of purchase of the vehicle issued insurance policy of the vehicle to the complainant through Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. A temporary registration No. PB-02-Temp-BW-1424 was allotted to the car of the complainant which was valid from 10.8.2014 to 9.9.2014. The complainant alleges that he has paid Rs. 5,60,000/- to the opposite party which included the cost of vehicle , insurance premium, cost of accessories as well as registration charges. Opposite party was to deliver the RC of the car to the complainant within one month with registration No. 240. Opposite party also retained the original bill of the vehicle for submission of the same to the registering authority for preparation of RC . But the opposite party did not supply the RC of the vehicle to the complainant despite the fact that complainant repeatedly visited the office of the opposite party to collect the RC . The complainant further alleged that he requested the opposite party to hand over the original bill of the vehicle and to refund the amount of RC , so that the complainant could apply to the office of DTO for RC of the vehicle, so that penalty could be avoided of late fee for preparation of new RC after expiry of period of temporary number. The complainant has come to know that the opposite party has not applied for the RC of the vehicle of the complainant in DTO office nor refund the amount of the RC to the complainant. The complainant has unable to drive his car on road due to non registration of the vehicle. The complainant in his complaint submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the opposite party. The value of the vehicle/car was Rs. 5,43,078/- and Rs. 17,176/- for the insurance done by the opposite party. The total cost of the vehicle was Rs. 5,60,254/- . The complainant paid Rs. 1,80,000/- vide receipt dated 8.8.2014 Ex.C-2 and Rs. 3,75,950/- were received through demand draft No. 731477 by the opposite party from the financer . As such the total amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party comes to Rs.5,55,950/-. The complainant promised to pay balance amount of Rs. 4304/- to the opposite party within a week and for that purpose the original bills of the car were retained by the opposite party due to non payment of the balance amount of Rs. 4304/-. But the complainant did not pay this amount to the opposite party,. The complainant has never paid registration charges of the vehicle to the opposite party nor the opposite party has ever promised to the complainant that they shall get the RC of the vehicle of the complainant prepared from the concerned authority i.e. DTO rather the complainant has not paid the balance amount of the price of the car. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased car in question from the opposite party on 10.8.2014. The price of the vehicle was Rs. 5,43,078/-, insurance charges Rs. 17,176/-, as such the total price of the car including insurance was Rs. 5,60,254/- as per retail invoice Ex.OP3. The complainant paid Rs. 1,80,000/- as down payment to the opposite party vide receipt dated 8.8.2014 Ex.C-2, whereas an amount of Rs. 3,75,950/- was received through demand draft No. 731477 by the opposite party from the financier who financed the vehicle and this amount was credited to the account of the opposite party as is evident from the statement of account Ex.OP2. So in all the complainant paid Rs. 5,55,950/- leaving balance amount of Rs. 4304/- payable by the complainant to the opposite party. But the complainant did not pay this amount to the opposite party and the opposite party retained the invoice of the vehicle due to non payment of balance amount of Rs. 4304/- by the complainant. The complainant could not produce any evidence that he paid the amount of registration charges of the vehicle to the opposite party nor the complainant could produce any evidence that the amount of registration of the vehicle was included in the price of the vehicle as per invoice Ex.OP3. So the complainant has totally failed to prove on record that he paid the amount of registration charges of the vehicle of the complainant, to the opposite party nor the complainant could produce any evidence that the opposite party has assured the complainant to get the RC of the vehicle of the complainant prepared from the DTO concerned free of cost. So the complainant cannot claim RC of the vehicle in question from the opposite party. Rather the complainant has failed to prove on record payment of full price of the vehicle to the opposite party.

9. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

11.09.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member