THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 642 of 2014
Date of Institution : 8.12.2014
Date of Decision : 26.08.2015
Bikramjit Singh S/o Raj Singh R/o Vill. Roran Wala Kalan P.O. Attari, Tehsil & District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Novelty Hyundai ,Near New Amritsar,G.T.Road, Amritsar through its proprietor
District Transport Officer,Amritsar
Hyundai Motors India Ltd., Sriperumbur, Distt.Kanchipuram (Tamilnadu,India)
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. Mohan Arora,Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Ex-parte
For opposite party No.3 : Sh.K.K.Thakur,Advocate
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 Sh.Bikramjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Hyundai Verna car from opposite party No.1 for Rs. 10,07,249/- which included the registration charges of the vehicle on 25.6.2014. Opposite party supplied temporary number of the car bearing No. PB-02-BU-1814. Thereafter complainant made several visits to opposite party No.1 for the supply of RC of the vehicle, but after the passage of 5 months, the RC of the abovesaid car has not been supplied so far. Complainant has alleged that the car is having technical defects such as the dash board of the car gives noise and the same is required to be replaced, steering of the car is also not functioning properly and it also requires to be replaced . The agency mechanic reported the defects in the job card such as suspension noise check, vehicle bubling check, wiper blade noise check. But the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The defects pointed out in the job card are still existing. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for non supply of RC and also to supply the RC of the vehicle . Opposite parties be also directed to remove the defects mentioned in the job card . Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the dispute in the present case is involved regarding deposit of excessive rate of tax which has to be paid by the complainant but to avoid the payment of excess rate of tax, complainant has filed the present complaint. However, to avoid any conflicts the replying opposite party had already deposited the payment of excess amount of tax to the Transport department and RC of the vehicle has already been issued by the concerned department. Opposite party had offered and requested the complainant to collect the RC from the office, but he is adamant that he will collect the RC in the Court. Replying opposite party is ready to hand over the RC of the car to the complainant. It was submitted that complainant had sold his old hyundai car and in exchange , he had purchased new Hyundai car and it was offered by opposite party No.3 that exchange bonus amount of Rs. 30000/- be given to the customers who will sell its old Hyundai car and will purchase new car. As such complainant was also entitled to avail the scheme and this amount was to be paid by the company i.e. opposite party No.3. The complainant was adamant to adjust the amount of Rs. 30000/-. Opposite party No.1 told the complainant that this exchange amount of Rs. 30000/- is to be paid by the manufacturing company i.e. opposite party No.3. But the complainant refused to accept this genuine request and did not provide the complete documents to opposite party No.1 to apply for RC of vehicle in question. On 20.10.2014 opposite party No.1 received amount of Rs. 30000/- from opposite party No.3 and on the next day i.e. 21.10.2014 cheque of Rs. 30000/- was issued in the name of the complainant and thereafter the complainant provided the documents to opposite party No.1 but by that time Govt. has increased the registration tax amount and the complainant refused to pay the excess payment of tax. But inspite of that opposite party No.1 deposited even enhanced tax of registration of the vehicle and got the RC prepared. But the complainant refused to collect the RC of the vehicle in question from opposite party No.1 . It was denied that the abovesaid car is having technical defects in dash board and steering of the vehicle . There is no requirement to replace such articles in the vehicle . It was submitted that the above mentioned problems were mentioned by the complainant in the job card dated 10.9.2014 and mechanic was asked to check the same and when repair was made, it found nothing and had checked the vehicle and with proper satisfaction of the complainant, vehicle was handed over to the complainant. Again vehicle was brought to the service centre on 11.12.2014 and then on 17.1.2015 but no such problems were reported by the complainant. After proper checking of the vehicle, complainant had received the car in good working condition and there is no defect in the same. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that as per opposite party No.1 , registration certificate dated 7.1.2015 has already been provided to the complainant. It was submitted that vehicle was reported on 17.1.2015 at the mileage of 25200 km which shows that vehicle is being used extensively in last about 6 months. It was submitted that complainant has failed to produce any evidence regarding manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite party No.2 did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 5.2.2015.
5. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7.
6. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kakaria Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/13.
7. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Manish Kumar Asstt.Manager Ex.OP3/1.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 3 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite party No. 1&3.
9. 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 Hyundai Verna car for a sum of Rs. 10,07,249/- from opposite party No.1 on 25.6.2014. The complainant paid the entire amount of the vehicle which included the registration charges of the vehicle to opposite party No.2 on 25.6.2014. Opposite party supplied temporary number of the car as PB-02-BU-1814 which was valid for one month and the opposite party was liable to give permanent RC of the vehicle to the complainant within one month. However, the employees of opposite party No.1 supplied the complainant to collect the RC from their agency after 10 days. But the opposite party did not supply the RC of the vehicle to the complainant despite so many visits made by the complainant to opposite party No.1 . Without RC the abovesaid car could not be used by the complainant. The complainant further submitted that the said car has technical defects, dash board of the car was giving noise which is required to be replaced, steering of the car is also not functioning properly which also requires replacement immediately. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 through job sheet dated 10.9.2014 Ex.C-5 checked the suspension noise, vehicle bubling, wiper blade noise. But they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant regarding dash board and steering . The complainant submitted that these defects are still existing. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that opposite parties No.1 & 3 neither repaired the car properly nor supplied the RC of the car to the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties qua the complainant.
10. Whereas case of opposite parties No.1 & 3 is that after the purchase of the vehicle in question by the complainant from opposite party No.1, rate of tax of registration of the vehicle was enhanced by the State Govt. The complainant was required to pay such excess rate of tax. But to avoid any conflict, opposite party No.1 deposited the payment of such amount of tax to the Transport department and the Transport department had already issued the RC of the vehicle on 7.1.2015, copy of which is Ex.OP1/6. The complainant was asked to collect the RC of the vehicle but he refused to take the RC of the vehicle rather threatened the opposite party No.1 that he shall now meet the opposite parties in the Court. Apart from this the complainant was also entitled to avail the exchange bonus scheme vide which he was entitled to Rs. 30000/- . The complainant was adamant to adjust the amount of Rs. 30000/-. Opposite party No.1 told the complainant that this exchange amount of Rs. 30000/- is to be paid by the manufacturing company i.e. opposite party NO.3. But the complainant refused to accept this genuine request and did not provide the complete documents to opposite party No.1 to apply for RC of vehicle in question. On 20.10.2014 opposite party No.1 received amount of Rs. 30000/- from opposite party No.3 and on the next day i.e. 21.10.2014 cheque of Rs. 30000/- was issued in the name of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant provided the documents to opposite party No.1 and by that time Govt. has increased the registration tax amount and the complainant refused to pay the excess payment of tax. But inspite of that opposite party No.1 deposited even enhanced tax of registration of the vehicle and got the RC prepared . So it is the fault on the part of the complainant, who refused to collect the RC of the vehicle in question from opposite party No.1 .
11. As regards the defects in the car in question, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 at the time of second free service on 10.9.2014 through job sheet Ex.C-5 vide which opposite party No.1 checked the suspension voice, vehicle vubling and wiper blade noise of the vehicle in question and handed over the car to the complainant after full and proper repair and free service. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for third free service of the vehicle on 11.12.2014 with mileage at 21900 km as is evident from the credit card invoice Ex.OP1/5. This time complainant did not make any complaint regarding the vehicle in question and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant after repair and free service. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 30.6.2015 vide invoice Ex.OP1/7 when the entire vehicle of the complainant was checked at the mileage of 31713 km . In this job sheet/invoice there is also no complaint of any defect in the vehicle. Even on 29.6.2014 vide job sheet Ex.OP1/8 and Ex.OP1/9 at the mileage of 31713 km. No defect has been mentioned by the complainant in the vehicle in question and the complainant has taken away the vehicle after proper satisfaction and he did not complaint any defect in the vehicle in question. Ex.OP1/11 is another job card dated 29.6.2014 . This time also no defect has been mentioned by the complainant in the vehicle in question and this job sheet bears signatures of the complainant certifying that repairs have been carried out to his entire satisfaction. Similarly vide job card of 3rd free service Ex.OP1/12 no defect was mentioned by the complainant in the vehicle in question. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that complainant has failed to point out any defect in the vehicle in question what to speak of manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant. So he,therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 3 qua the complainant.
12. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased the vehicle in question i.e. Hyundai Verna car from opposite party No.1 on 25.6.2014 for a sum of Rs. 10,07,249/- and he paid the entire amount to opposite party No.1 vide invoice Ex.C-3 which included the registration charges of the vehicle. Opposite party No.1 supplied temporary number of the car as PB-02-BU-1814 at the time of purchase of the car which was valid for one month only. Therefore, opposite party No.1 was bound to supply the RC of the vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of purchase of the vehicle which is 25.6.2014. But opposite party No.1 did not furnish the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that after one month from the date of purchase of the vehicle , complainant could not use the vehicle in question. But this plea of the complainant is not tenable because the job sheet of the vehicle i.e. first free service Ex.OP1/11 dated 29.6.2014 was showing mileage 1905 km that the vehicle has already run 1905 km upto 29.6.2014. The second free service job sheet Ex.C-5 dated 10.9.2014 shows that mileage of the car was 10606 km that the vehicle in question has already run 10606 km. The third free service credit card invoice dated 11.12.2014 Ex,.OP1/5 shows the mileage of the car in question as 21900 km that the vehicle has already run 21900 km upto 11.12.2014 and thereafter the service invoice of the vehicle of the complainant Ex.OP1/7 dated 30.6.2015 shows the mileage of the vehicle as 31713 i.e. vehicle has already run 31713 km upto 30.6.2015. Ex.OP1/8 and Ex.OP1/9 also prove that the vehicle had already run 31713 km upto 30.6.2015. So it cannot be said that complainant could not use the vehicle in question due to non supply of RC by the opposite parties.
13. However, opposite party No.1 was bound to furnish the RC of the vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of its purchase which is 25.6.2014. But opposite party No.1 did not even submit the papers to the registering authorities i.e.DTO Amritsar regarding registration of the vehicle of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has taken plea that there was dispute regarding exchange offer of Rs. 30000/- which was to be paid by the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.3 and the complainant did not furnish the ID proof documents to opposite party No.1. So opposite party No.1 could not submit the papers for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant before the registering authorities i.e. opposite party No.2 in time. Here we do not agree with his contention of opposite party No.1 because opposite party No.1 had already taken the necessary documents from the complainant at the time of delivery of the car to the complainant on 25.6.2014 . The dispute regarding the amount of exchange offer of Rs. 30000/- has no concern with the registration of the vehicle. So opposite party No.1 was negligent in not submitting the papers for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant to the registering authorities i.e. opposite party No.2 well in time i.e. immediately after the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. Rather they got the RC of the vehicle prepared from opposite party No.2 in January 2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than 6 months as is evident from the copy of the RC produced by opposite party No.1 Ex.OP1/6 which is dated 7.1.2015. The complainant had knowledge of the RC which was got prepared by opposite party No.1 because he has already mentioned the RC number of the vehicle in his complaint i.e. para 2 of the complaint. Counsel for opposite party No.1 also got recorded his statement in the Forum dated 25.8.2015 that he has brought the RC of the vehicle bearing No. PB-02-CK-5510 which the opposite party No.1 has got prepared from opposite party No.2 on 7.1.2015 and he is ready to hand over the same to the complainant. So it stands fully proved on record that no doubt the opposite party No.1 has got prepared the RC of the vehicle and they are ready to hand over the same to the complainant. But opposite party No.1 has got it prepared after a lapse of a period of more than six months from the date of purchase of the vehicle , whereas opposite party No.1 was bound to furnish the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant within one month from the date of its purchase. So certainly opposite party No.1 is in deficiency of service in getting the RC of the vehicle of the complainant prepared very late i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than six months. So opposite party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant.
14. As regards the other allegations of the complainant that there was manufacturing defects in the vehicle in question. The complainant could not produce any cogent evidence that there was any defect in the vehicle in question what to speak of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question because after the second free service, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for 3rd free service as well as other services of the vehicle in question on 11.12.2014 credit card invoice of which is Ex.OP1/5 and on 30.6.2015 vide service invoice dated 30.6.2015 job sheet Ex.OP1/8 and Ex. OP1/9 both dated 17.6.2015, the complainant did not point out any defect in the vehicle in question what to speak of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question . Rather the complainant has received the vehicle in question from opposite party No.1 vide repair order sheet Ex.OP1/4 dated 29.6.2014 under his own signatures certifying that the repairs have been carried out to his entire satisfaction. So we hold that complainant has failed to point out any defect what to speak of manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.
15. Resultantly this complaint is disposed of with the directions to opposite party No.1 to supply the RC of the vehicle to the complainant immediately. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 10000/-. Opposite party No.1 is also directed 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. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
26.08.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
