Haryana

Kurukshetra

132/2018

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nagpal TVS - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar thakur

05 Feb 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                      Consumer Complaint No.132 of 2018.

Date of instt.:.15.06.2018. 

                                                                        Date of Decision:05.02.2020.

 

Satnam Singh s/o Shri Sukhdev Singh, r/o VPO Jandheri Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                           Versus

 

1. Nagpal TVS, Authorized dealer TVS Motor Company, Ladwa Road, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor/Manager.
2. SDM Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                 

Present:     Shri Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for the complainant.        

Shri J.S. Brar, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Shri Mukesh Sharma, ADA for the opposite party No.2.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Satnam Singh against Nagpal TVS and other, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased TVS Jupitor BS IV vehicle and paid Rs.5,000/- as down payment and for temporary number to OP No.1. That he insisted for related bill as well as insurance documents, but the OP No.1 kept the same for the purpose of getting finance and asked him to approach for bill etc. after a week time. While handing over the scooty, the OP No.1 assured him that the insurance has been done on the date of delivery i.e. 04.10.2017 and he was insured vide such policy for own damage claim as well as third party claim. On 06.10.2017, when his cousin namely Tara Singh s/o Shri Pritam Singh, who was having valid Driving License, was approaching for some domestic work near Shahabad Markanda, due to overtake of a tractor, the said scooty slipped and damaged moderately. On his asking, Tara Singh took vehicle to OP No.1 and insisted for cashless repair, but its workshop officials denied to repair the same without charging the repair amount. As such, Rs.6000/- was paid to the OP No.1, who did not give any bill. He approached the OP No.1 after a week of purchase for getting the insurance copy of said vehicle, but he surprised to see that the insurance period has been commenced from 09.10.2017 instead of date of actual purchase of vehicle i.e. 04.10.2017. After about one month, the OP No.1 contacted him and demanded Rs.10,000/- qua the amount of down payment by saying that he was not eligible for being enrolled in 4999 scheme and he paid again Rs.10,000/- for the registration of the scooty. He received the registration certificate after 07.03.2018 bearing No.HR-78C-2695 by showing the said scooty hypothecated to Capital First Ltd, whereas, in reality the vehicle was hypothecated with IndusInd Bank Ltd. Now due the deficiency of the OPs No.1 & 2, he received defective registration certificate under which endorsement of financer was Capital First Ltd., instead of actual financer i.e. IndusInd Bank Ltd. This way, the OPs are deficient. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and jurisdiction. It is stated that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 for purchase of scooty on finance. He told that he wanted to obtain the loan from the Capital Finance Company and accordingly, the process of form has been started and OP No.1 filled up online form and mentioned the name of finance company as Capital Finance. Thereafter, the complainant told the OP No.1 that he does not want to get the loan from Capital Finance Company and wants to get the same from IndusInd Bank and told that Capital Finance Company has rejected to give the finance to him. The complainant got financed from IndusInd Bank and the form and concerned bill has been corrected and deposited the same for registration certificate, but online form cannot be corrected as the same is process from Chandigarh and it cannot be changed. The complainant visited the OP No.1 and told that the officials of SDM have entered the loan of Capital Finance on the registration certificate instead of IndusInd Bank. There is no fault or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. The OP No.1 is only dealer of sale of vehicle. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.

                Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written statement stating therein that the registration certificate was issued by the office of OP No.2 and in the hypothecation column, the name of financer has been written as “Capital First Ltd”. This name of financer has been written on the basis of Form 20, which has been generated by the OP No.1 online and in this online form, the name of financer as Capital First Ltd. It is worth to mention here that in the office of OP No.2, Online Form 20 is seen at the time of entering the name of financer in the registration certificate. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the complaint against it.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A & Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered document Ex.R-1. The ADA for OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated all the averments mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased TVS Jupitor BS IV vehicle after paying down payment of Rs.5,000/- from the OP No.1. He further argued that the OP No.1 kept the documents with him for the purpose of getting finance and also assured him that the insurance has been done on the date of delivery i.e. 04.10.2017. On 06.10.2017, the said scooty got damaged moderately and the complainant spent Rs.6000/- for its repair. He further argued that the complainant approached the OP No.1 after a week of purchase for getting the insurance copy of said vehicle, but he surprised to see that the insurance period has been commenced from 09.10.2017 instead of date of actual purchase of vehicle i.e. 04.10.2017. After about one month, the OP No.1 contacted him and demanded Rs.10,000/- qua the amount of down payment by saying that he was not eligible for being enrolled in 4999 scheme and he paid again Rs.10,000/- for the registration of the scooty. He received the registration certificate after 07.03.2018 bearing No.HR-78C-2695 by showing the said scooty hypothecated to Capital First Ltd, whereas, in reality the vehicle was hypothecated with IndusInd Bank Ltd. To support his contention, he placed reliance upon case law titled Om Parkash Vs. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro, 1994, 81 CompCas 3741, dod 12.04.1994 (SC).

6.             Contrary to it, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has also reiterated all the averments mentioned in the reply. He argued that the complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 for purchase of scooty on finance and wanted to obtain the loan from the Capital Finance Company and accordingly, the process of form has been started and OP No.1 filled up online form and mentioned the name of finance company as Capital Finance. He further argued that thereafter, the complainant told the OP No.1 that he does not want to get the loan from Capital Finance Company and wants to get the same from IndusInd Bank and told that Capital Finance Company has rejected to give the finance to him. The complainant got financed from IndusInd Bank and the form and concerned bill has been corrected and deposited the same for registration certificate, but online form cannot be corrected as the same is process from Chandigarh and it cannot be changed. He further argued that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 09.10.2017 instead of 04.10.2017 and on that date, the OP No.1 insured the vehicle. There is no fault or deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

7.             The ADA for the OP No.2 has also reiterated all the averments mentioned in the reply. He argued that the registration certificate was issued by the office of OP No.2 and in the hypothecation column, the name of financer has been written as “Capital First Ltd.”. This name of financer has been written on the basis of Form 20, which has been generated by the OP No.1 online and in this online form, the name of financer as Capital First Ltd. It is worth to mention here that in the office of OP No.2, Online Form 20 is seen at the time of entering the name of financer in the registration certificate. There is no deficiency on the part of the OP No.2.

8.             Admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the OP No.1 and got insured the same vide policy Ex.C1. The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle in question on 04.10.2017, whereas, the OP No.1 got insured the same on 09.10.2017, due to that, he was insisted to pay Rs.6,000/- for the repair of vehicle for his pocket which was got damaged in an accident on 06.10.2017. Whereas, the OP No.1 has contended that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 09.10.2017 instead of 04.10.2017 and on that date, he insured the vehicle. In this regard, the OP No.1 produced original book receipt and its copy is Mark-A (original seen and returned). From the perusal of said document, it is evident that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 09.10.2017 instead of 04.10.2017 as alleged by the complainant and from the policy Ex.C-1, it is evident that the OP No.1 insured the said vehicle on that date i.e. 09.10.2017. So, this contention of the complainant that he purchased the vehicle in question on 04.10.2017, has no force, hence rejected.

9.             The complainant further alleged that he received defective registration certificate, under which, endorsement of financer was Capital First Ltd., instead of actual financer i.e. IndusInd Bank Ltd. From the photocopy of bill Mark-A, it is clear that the OP No.1 has written “IndusInd Bank Ltd.” by overwriting. In this regard, the OP No.1 has contended that the complainant himself told that he wanted to get finance the vehicle from Capital Finance Company and accordingly, the OP No.1 filled up his Online form, but the OP No.1 has failed to produce any documentary proof in this regard and merely by the oral version of the OP No.1, it cannot be ascertained that the complainant himself asked/chosen the Capital Finance Company for finance his vehicle and in this way, by endorsing the financer Capital First Ltd. instead of actual financer i.e. IndusInd Bank Ltd., the OP No.1, which shows great deficiency on the part of the OP No.1. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP No.1 is deficient in providing the services to the complainant.

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby direct the OP No.2 to rectify the financer name in the registration certificate of the vehicle in question from “Capital First Ltd.” to “IndusInd Bank Ltd.” after receiving the requisite charges. The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses, to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:05.02.2020.                                                   (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.