| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.654 of 14 Date of Institution: 11-12-2014 Date of Decision: 22-06-2015 Rajbir Kaur wife of S.Malkiat Singh, resident of 727, S.G.Enclave, Phase-I, Majitha Road, Amritsar. Complainant Versus - Novelty Hyundai, Near New Amritsar, G.T.Road, Amritsar through its Proprietor.
- District Transport Officer, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11, 12, 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. Present: For the Complainant: In person. For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh. Mohan Arora, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2: Exparte. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Rajbir Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she purchased a Car Hyundai i-20 ASTA 1.4 DSL New (Sleek Silver RHM) for Rs.7,83,681/- (including Output VAT @ 14.30% and other charges vehicles (logistics) vide invoice No. 14G0425 dated 12.9.2014 from Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that she was supplied a Temporary Registration Number assigned to the vehicle as PB-02-BU-2106 at the time of purchasing the said vehicle. Thereafter, a permanent registration of the car was supposed to be received from Opposite Party No.1 by the complainant. But after one month, the complainant enquired from Opposite Party No.1 regarding registration copy of the car, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant went to District Transport Officer, Amritsar to enquire regarding submission of registration number and found that the registration number documents were not found in the record and the complainant approached to Opposite Party No.1 and told about it and Opposite Party No.1 told to the complainant that due to hike in the vehicle tax pronounced by Punjab Government, Opposite Party No.1 did not pay the hike tax to District Transport Officer, Amritsar, that is why there is delay in issuing the registration permanent number. The complainant paid in cash additional hike in vehicle tax to Opposite Party No.1 vide two receipts bearing No.4354 for Rs.600/- and receipt No. 4351 for Rs.13000/- on 11.11.2014. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 paid hike tax online and registration number was generated promptly bearing registration No.PB-02-CL-5704. The complainant while purchasing the aforesaid car has already paid all the taxes to Opposite Party No.1 on 12.9.2014, but due to the negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1, who did not deposit the vehicle tax to the concerned department in time in respect of the aforesaid vehicle and the Punjab Government has hiked the vehicle tax in the month of November, 2014. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.13,600/- alongwith interest to the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as per the instructions of the Punjab Government, the Registration Certificate of the vehicle is to be applied by the dealer/ seller of the vehicle and the amount is to be paid by the customer and in the present case, the excess amount was also to be paid by the complainant which was rightly demanded by the Opposite Party No.1 and had rightly deposited by the complainant with Opposite Party No.1 without any objection and accordingly, the Registration Certificate of the complainant was applied by the Opposite Party No.1 and District Transport Officer, Amritsar had issued Registration Certificate in the name of complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying Opposite Party. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite proper service, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.1.2015 of this Forum.
- Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rajesh Kakaria, attorney holder Ex.OP1/1 and copy of resolution Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased a Car Hyundai i-20 ASTA 1.4 DSL New (Sleek Silver RHM) for Rs.7,83,681/- (including Output VAT @ 14.30% and other charges vehicles from Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice dated 12.9.2014 Ex.C6. The vehicle of the complainant was supplied with Temporary Registration Mark i.e. PB-02-BU-2106 at the time of purchasing the said vehicle. The complainant deposited the registration charges of the vehicle with Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 as bound to supply the permanent Registration Certificate number of the car to the complainant. Complainant alleges that after about one month, the complainant enquired about the Registration Certificate of the vehicle from Opposite Party No.1, but the Opposite Party No.1 could not furnish any explanation. However, the complainant visited the office of District Transport Officer, Amritsar and came to know that Opposite Party No.1 had not submitted the documents as well as registration fee for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant with the office of District Transport Officer, Amritsar. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab enhanced the vehicle tax. The Opposite Party No.1 forced the complainant to deposit the enhanced vehicle tax for the registration of her vehicle who paid the entire amount of Rs.13,600/- to Opposite Party No.1 vide receipt No. 4354 dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C2 and receipt No. 4351 dated 11.11.2014 Ex.C3 and then, the Opposite Party No.1 deposited the registration charges of the vehicle of the complainant with Opposite Party No.2 and then, Opposite Party No.2 got the registration certificate of the vehicle of the complainant and handed over the same to the complainant. The complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.13,600/- which the complainant had to pay due to fault on the part of Opposite Party No.1, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
- Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that no doubt, the complainant deposited the registration fee of the vehicle in question with Opposite Party No.1 on 12.9.2014. Thereafter, the Punjab Government enhanced the registration charges by 2% w.e.f. 8.10.2014. The complainant was required to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.13,600/- of the registration charges. The complainant deposited this amount with Opposite Party No.1 vide receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 dated 11.11.2014 and the Opposite Party No.1 deposited the enhanced registration charges with Registering Authority i.e. District Transport Officer, Amritsar and then the Registering Authority i.e. District Transport Officer, Amritsar issued the Registration Certificate of the vehicle of the complainant and the same was handed over to the complainant in the month of January, 2015. The dispute in the present case is regarding the deposit of excess rate of tax which has been paid by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1. These registration charges have been enhanced by Government of Punjab, as such these enhanced amount of Registration Certificate are to be paid by the customer. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that Opposite Party No.1 is not guilty of any deficiency in service towards the complainant.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from Opposite Party No.1 on 12.9.2014 and it is admitted case of Opposite Party No.1 that the complainant also deposited the entire registration charges of the vehicle with Opposite Party No.1 on that date i.e. 12.9.2014 and the complainant was given only temporary registration number. The Registration Certificate of the vehicle is to be applied by the dealer/ seller of the vehicle i.e. Opposite Party No.1 and the amount is to be paid by the customer. In the present case, the complainant deposited the entire registration fee of her vehicle i-20 Car Hyundai with Opposite Party No.1 on 12.9.2014, but Opposite Party No.1 did not deposit the registration charges of the vehicle of the complainant with Opposite Party No.2 Registering Authority i.e. District Transport Officer, Amritsar. Thereafter, the Punjab Government enhanced the registration charges by 2% w.e.f. 8.10.2014 and the complainant was forced to deposit this enhanced amount of Rs.13,600/- regarding the registration of the vehicle of the complainant with Opposite Party No.1 vide receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.3 of dated 11.11.2014. All this happened due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 in not depositing the registration charges alongwith relevant documents for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant, with the Registering Authority i.e. District Transport Officer, Amritsar immediately when the complainant purchased the vehicle in question and deposited the entire registration charges with Opposite Party No.1 i.e. on 12.9.2014. Had the Opposite Party No.1 deposited the registration charges alongwith relevant documents of the vehicle of the complainant for registration of the vehicle of the complainant with Registering Authority i.e. District Transport Officer, Amritsar on 12.9.2014 or within a few days, the complainant would not have to pay the enhanced rate of registration charges i.e. Rs.13,600/- more. All this happened due to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. So, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to refund this amount of Rs.13,600/- to the complainant.
- Consequently, the complaint is partly allowed with costs and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund this amount of Rs.13,600/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount of Rs.13,600/-, from the date of filing of the present complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. 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.
Dated: 22-06-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
