DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No: 22/29.02.2008 Decided on : 28.1.2009 Sh.Hari Ram S/o Sh.Parkash Chand, resident of Bhikhi Road, Mansa, presently residing at Thuthianwali Kanchiyan Road, Mansa. .....Complainant. VERSUS M/s Imperial Motors (Unit of Imperial Associates Motors) Private Limited, Head Office, G.T. Road, Bathinda, District Bathinda. .....Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. Anil Seth, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the opposite party. Quorum: Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Hari Ram son of Parkash Chand, resident of Bhikhi Road, Mansa, presently residing at Thuthianwali Kanchiyan Road, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: That the complainant purchased a Max Pickup Van, bearing registration No.PB-03T-M/0166, from the opposite party. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, sale letter, bills and temporary registration number, were handed over, to the the complainant, but the opposite party, failed to issue Form No.22 to him. The complainant, being an illiterate, was not Contd........2 : 2 : conversant, with the rules and regulations, framed under Motor Vehicle Act. The above said vehicle of the complainant, was impounded, by the transport authorities, for non production of Form No.22 and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, was imposed, upon the complainant, as such, he has suffered loss, in the sum of Rs.3,000/-, on that score, and also loss in his business, in the sum of RS.1500/-, per day, as he could not ply his vehicle, for a period of 4-5 days, before it was released, due to deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party issued a temporary registration No.PB-03T (M)0166,to the vehicle of the complainant but lateron, changed the same to PB-03T (M)0058. The opposite party, was under obligation, to provide three free services, to the vehicle, purchased by the complainant , but has charged a sum of Rs.1500/-, Rs.1600/- and Rs.1689/-, respectively in an illegal and unjust manner. At the end a prayer, has been made that opposite party be directed, to compensate the complainant, in the sum of Rs.3,000/-, on account of fine imposed by the D.T.O. and a sum of Rs.4,789/- charged on account of free services, as per terms and conditions of the sale letter and another amount of Rs.2,500/- spent by him for release of the vehicle. It is also prayed that opposite party be directed, to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-, to the complainant, due to loss suffered by him in his business and a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on account of mental and physical harassment, along with costs incurred by him for filing the complaint. On being put to notice, the opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, has no locus standi and cause of action, to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable ; that this Forum, has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, because office of the opposite party is not situated within its jurisdiction and the complainant, has purchased the vehicle from Bathinda and cause of action has not accrued to him at Mansa; that the complainant, has misrepresented Contd........3 : 3 : the facts, before this Forum, by twisting the real facts, regarding non issuance of Form No.22; that the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and, being false and vexatious, is liable to dismissed, with costs. On merits, it is denied that temporary No.PB-03T (M)0166 was issued to the complainant, which was subsequently changed to PB-03T (M)0058. It is submitted that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, all the documents, including Form No.22, were delivered to the complainant, as per usual practice adopted by the opposite party, for sale of vehicle. It is also denied that any amount was charged from the complainant on account of three free services or that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is contended that instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, to extort money from the opposite party and to damage its reputation. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavits, Exhibits C-1 and his counsel closed evidence after tendering copy of receipt Ext.C-2 issued by the District Transport Officer, Tarn Taran. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit Ext.OP-1 of Sh.Sanjeev Devgan, General Manager and copies of documents Ext.OP-2 to OP-22 and closed evidence on their behalf. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. At the out set, learned counsel for the complainant Sh.Anil Seth, Advocate, has submitted that factum of sale of vehicle, to the complainant, has not been denied, by the opposite party, in their written version and they have not produced any evidence to show the issuance of Form No.22, to the complainant, at the time of delivery of vehicle and Contd........4 : 4 : other documents along with the vehicle, and opposite party, has changed the temporary registration number of his vehicle without giving any notice to the complainant. Learned counsel, has contended that the complainant is a rural rustic person, who is not conversant with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and as per receipt of fine produced by him, he was challaned by the police, for non possession of Form No.22, as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Learned counsel further argued, that complainant had to part with a sum of Rs.3,000/-, on account of fine imposed by the competent authority and he could not use his vehicle for several days, due to impounding of the same by the police. Learned counsel argued that as per documents tendered in evidence by the opposite party, they were under obligation to render three free services, but they have charged huge amount from the complainant, because of which he has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Learned counsel, has also argued that complainant is entitled to payment of compensation and costs, as prayed for in the complaint, along with interest @ 18% per annum. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party, Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that the complainant, has not produced on record the challan issued by the police and, in the receipt, produced by him, no reason has been assigned for challan thereof by the D.T.O. concerned, as such, his plea cannot be accepted that his vehicle was challaned for non possession of Form No.22. Learned counsel argued that infact Form No.22, had been delivered to the complainant along with other documents and every person is supposed to know the law of the land and complainant has appended his signatures on the complaint, as such, there is no substance in the plea that he was not conversant with the requirement of possession of Form No.22. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to copies of documents, tendered by the opposite party, wherein the temporary registration number of the vehicle sold to the complainant, has Contd........5 : 5 : been mentioned as PB-03T (M)0058. Learned counsel, has further contended, that as mentioned, in the documents placed on record, the opposite party, has not charged any amount for first three free services from the complainant, except the charges for lubricants and spare parts etc. Learned counsel, has argued that complainant, has not alleged any enmity towards the opposite party and its officials, as such, there was no reason for them to withhold any document or to claim extra charges. Learned counsel has argued, that as the complainant, has failed to discharge the initial onus placed on him, that he has been subjected to mental and physical harassment or has been burdened with any financial loss on account of any attributed to the opposite party, as such, he is not entitled for claiming any amount and complaint is liable to be dismissed. As per the admitted facts, the complainant purchased Max Pickup Van from the opposite party for consideration. As such, he is consumer, qua the said vehicle, under the opposite party. The plea of the complainant is that initially temporary Registration No. PB-03T (M)0166 was allotted, by the opposite party, to his vehicle, which is not corroborated by any documentary evidence. As per the case of the complainant, his above said vehicle was impounded by the police for want of possession of Form No.22, generally issued by the dealer, at the time of delivery of the vehicle, but he has not produced the challan issued by the police, containing reasons for impounding of his vehicle. Since he has withhold the above said material document, therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against him, to the effect, that had the same being brought on record, then the same may have falsified his plea. In the receipt Ext.C-2 issued by the D.T.O., Tarn Taran, his vehicle was impounded by the police, but the offence for commission of which it had been impounded, has not been mentioned. Therefore, on the basis of the affidavit alone, we are unable to accept his plea, that his vehicle, was impounded by the police for want of Form No.22 or that opposite party unilaterally changed Contd........6 : 6 : temporary registration number allotted to him at the time of purchase of vehicle. Every person is supposed to know the law of the land, even if, he is illiterate. As such, the complainant, cannot be said to be innocent, about the requirement of possession of material document, while plying the vehicle on the road, especially with temporary registration number. The complainant, has also not produced any record regarding the amount spent by him for release of his vehicle. In all the documents produced by the opposite party, temporary number allotted to the complainant, has been mentioned as PB-03T (M)0058. The temporary number of the vehicle cannot be said to have been altered by the opposite party, especially when no hostile animus, has been suggested on their part towards him by the complainant. The workers of the opposite party had no reason to change the registration number of the vehicle of the complainant, unless they could gain any financial benefit or some grudge to settle against the complainant. As per version of the complainant, the opposite party, has charged from him an amount of Rs.1500/-, Rs.1600/- and Rs.1689/- against three free services, which were to be rendered to him. The complainant, has not formally tendered in evidence, any bill issued by the opposite party. As per the documents produced on record, the opposite party, has charged certain amount from the complainant on account of spare parts, lubricants used for service and cost of labour etc, but as per the note given in bill Ext.OP-15 & 17, no amount had been paid by the complainant on account of first three free services. The initial onus was on the complainant, to prove that he had to pay and spend money and incurred any expenditure on account of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, qua the vehicle purchased by him by producing positive evidence, but he has failed to discharge the said onus. As such, he cannot succeed on the basis of the weakness in the case of the opposite party. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that complainant, has failed to establish that he either Contd........7 : 7 : suffered any physical and mental harassment, or any financial loss due to any act attributable to the opposite party or his workers. As such, he is not entitled to claim any amount, from the opposite party, on account of financial loss, suffered by him or compensation, for physical and mental harassment, and for costs incurred by him, for filing of the instant complaint. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 28.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
