THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 504 of 2014
Date of Institution : 15.9.2014
Date of Decision : 11.09.2015
Tarsem Singh Son of Sulakhan Singh resident of 40 East Gobind Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Padam Cars Private Limited, G.T. Road, Near Byepass Chowk, Jalandhar Road, Amritsar through its Managing Director/Director
M/s. M.K. Financial Services (Regd.) Ist Floor, 55F , Above Narain Bajaj, 2-Wheeler Show Room, Near Indusind Bank, City Centre, G.T. Road, Amritsar through its Partner
M/s. Shri Ram Finance Limited, 100ft Road,Amritsar through its Branch Manager
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Rajiv Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite party No.1 :Sh. J.S. Pannu,Advocate
For opposite party No.2 : Ex-parte
For opposite party No.3 : Sh.Munish Menon,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
-2-
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Tarsem Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Renault Pulse car bearing Chassis No. MEEAHBA30D1501276 Engine No. E018394 vide Challan dated 17.4.2013. According to the complainant he has made payment of Rs. 50000/- as advance to opposite party No.1 and got financed a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- from opposite party No.3. The total cost of the car was Rs. 6,52,000/- with free facility of registration certificate of the car and insurance policy of the car for one year. At the time of delivery of the car opposite party No.1 issued temporary certificate of registration of the car for the period from 17.4.2013 to 16.5.2013 and assured that the permanent RC shall be provided to the complainant before expiry of temporary certificate i.e. 16.5.2013. Complainant has alleged that before expiry of the said period of temporary certificate of registration, complainant requested the opposite party No.1 many times to give permanent RC of the vehicle , but opposite party No.1 failed to provide the same. Complainant has further alleged that when the temporary certificate of registration was issued the same was issued by DTO Amritsar but after seeing the copy of the same, complainant came to know that the temporary registration certificate does not relates to their office rather it relates to office at Bhatinda. Complainant approached opposite party No.1 and raised objection in that respect , but opposite party No.1 failed to give satisfactory reply of not providing certificate of registration from the office at Amritsar. Even the certificate of that car from the office at Bhatinda has also not been provided till date by opposite party No.1. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over the original RC of the said car immediately. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 50000/- as advance to opposite party No.1. It was also denied that at the time of purchase of the car there was a scheme of the company for any free registration of the vehicle as well as insurance. It was denied that cost of the car was Rs. 6,52,000/-. Infact the cost of the car as per loan was Rs. 6,25,300/- less Rs. 44000/- rebate on the value of the car and the cost of the car became a sum of Rs. 5,81,300/-. It was submitted that complainant obtained financial facility of Rs. 3,94,868/- from opposite party No.3. It was denied that nothing is due to be paid by the complainant to opposite aprty No.1. Infact still an amount of Rs. 32757/- remained due as the registration charges which has not been paid by the complainant. The cost of registration charges is Rs. 33,179/-. . It was submitted that as the complainant failed to make payment of registration charges to opposite party No.1, as such the registration of the vehicle could not be provided to the complainant. In fact head office of opposite party No.1 is at Bhatinda due to which the temporary number was issued from the head office Bhatinda. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that as the complainant has not regularly paying the installments of the loan and he has not paid the installments for more than 8 months and just to avoid to return the loan amount, he has filed the present complaint.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that the said car was got financed by the complainant from opposite party No.2, which is an independent entity and is a franchisee of replying opposite party. It was denied that any loan document was executed by the complainant in favour of replying opposite party. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the replying opposite party. It was denied that complainant has made any request to the replying opposite party for providing registration certificate of the said car. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-20.
6. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Varun Sharma, General Manager Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/14.
7. Opposite party No.2 did not appear at the time of leading evidence , as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.4.2015.
8. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh. Ranbir Singh, authorized attorney Ex.OP3/1.
9. 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 the parties.
10. 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 Renault Pulse RXI car bearing Chassis No. MEEAHBA30D1501276 Engine No. E018394 vide Challan No. PCPL/0025/13-14 dated 17.4.2013 Ex.C-18 from opposite party No.1. Opposite party issued temporary registration certificate of the vehicle bearing No. PB-02-AB(T) 1374 Ex.C-17 valid for the period from 17.4.1013 to 16.5.2013. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs. 50000/- as booking advance charges to the opposite party. The complainant submitted that at the time of purchase of the policy there was a scheme of the company for giving free Insurance alongwith providing registration certificate free of cost. The cost of the car was Rs. 6,52,000/- with free registration certificate and insurance of one year. Out of the cost of the car the opposite party No.1 allowed to get financed a sum of Rs. 3,96,000/- from opposite party No.3. At the time of delivery of the car, the opposite party issued temporary certificate of registration valid from 17.4.2013 to 16.5.2013 alongwith insurance cover and opposite party No.1 assured that permanent certificate of registration shall be provided to the complainant before the expiry of temporary RC i.e. 16.5.2013. The said car was hypothecated with opposite party No.3 being financier of the car and certificate in that respect was issued. Opposite party did not give the bill of the car to the complainant and assured that the same shall be provided to the complainant within a few days. But they have failed to give the bill of the car to the complainant. Even the temporary registration certificate issued by the opposite party to the car of the complainant pertains to the registering office at Bathinda . The complainant approached the opposite party so many times to provide permanent registration certificate of the car in question, but the opposite party has failed to provide permanent RC of the car to the complainant. Due to non supply of permanent RC of the car in question by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, the car in question could not be taken on the road by the complainant. So the complainant suffered huge loss as he has been regularly paying the installments of the loan to opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.2. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
11. Whereas case of opposite party No.1 is that the cost of the car in question was Rs. 6,25,300/- out of which a rebate of Rs. 44,000/- was given to the complainant . As such the total cost of the car became a sum of Rs. 5,81,300/-. There was no scheme or provision of any free registration certificate with insurance policy of one year. The complainant obtained financial facility of Rs. 3,94,868/- from opposite party No.3. The complainant did not pay the full price of car in question. The cost of registration of the vehicle is Rs. 33,179/- but the complainant has not paid that amount to opposite party No.1. So the question of providing registration certificate of the car in question by opposite party No.1 to the complainant does not arise. The opposite party No.1 specifically denied that they assured the complainant that permanent certificate of registration of the car in question shall be provided to the complainant before the expiry of temporary registration period. Infact the complainant failed to make payment of registration charges to opposite party No.1 out of which RC of the vehicle could not be provided to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 further certified that the head office of opposite party No.1 is at Bhatinda due to which temporary number was issued from head office at Bhatinda which does not affect in any way in permanent RC of the vehicle which could be got prepared from registering authority at Amritsar. The amount of Rs. 32757/- is still due payable by the complainant towards the price of the car that is why the original bill of the car has not been supplied by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 further submitted that even cheque issued by the complainant for Rs. 20000/- on 31.5.2013 and cheque of Rs. 50000/- issued by the complainant were dishonoured by the banker of the complainant, as such the complainant himself is a defaulter . However, opposite party admitted that an amount of Rs. 3,94,868/- was received from Axis Bank against financial facility provided to the complainant for the purchase of the aforesaid car . However, still an amount of Rs. 32,757/- is still outstanding against the complainant as the cost of the car as per the copy of ledger Ex.OP1/4. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
12. Whereas opposite parties No.2 & 3 is that opposite party No.2 is one of the franchisee of opposite party No.3 which has an independent entity. Opposite party No.2 granted financial facility to the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle and the complainant has been making payments of the installments to opposite party No.2 as is evident from the receipts produced by the complainant Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-13 and are in the name of opposite party No.2. So opposite parties No.2 & 3 have no concern with the permanent RC of the vehicle which is the subject matter in dispute as claimed by the complainant. Ld.counsel for opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
13. From the entire above discussion we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Renault Pulse car bearing Chassis No. MEEAHBA30D1501276 Engine No. E018394 from opposite party No.1 and took the delivery of the car vide challan dated 17.4.2013 Ex.C-18. Opposite party No.1 also issued temporary certificate of registration bearing No. PB-02-AB (T) 1374 Ex.C-17 valid from 17.4.2013 to 16.5.2013. The complainant made some down payment to opposite party No.1, whereas he got financed the vehicle from opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to the tune of Rs. 3,94,868/- through Axis Bank. The price of the car was Rs. 6,25,300/- out of which opposite party No.1 gave rebate of Rs. 44000/-, as such the cost of the car became Rs. 5,81,300/-. Opposite party No.1 received Rs. 3,94,868/- from opposite parties No.2 & 3 and the complainant made down payment of Rs. 50000/- as per his statement of account as shown in the ledger Ex.OP1/4. A sum of Rs. 32757/- is still due payable by the complainant to opposite party No.1 that is why opposite party No.1 has not released the bill of the car in question to the complainant. The complainant could not rebut this averment of opposite party No.1 that he has paid the entire amount of the price of the car to opposite party No.1. Further, the complainant has submitted that there was scheme of the company for giving free insurance and providing registration certificate free of cost. Whereas opposite party No.2 has categorically denied that there was any such scheme. The complainant could not produce any voucher or any document or any assurance given by opposite party No.1 or by the company manufacturer of Renault Pulse car to prove that there was any such scheme to provide permanent registration certificate of the car in question to the buyer free of cost. Even the complainant did not make manufacturer of Renault Pulse Car as party to the present complaint. So the complainant has failed to prove on record that the manufacturer has provided any scheme for providing registration certificate of the vehicle in question free of cost nor the complainant could produce any document to prove that the opposite party No.1 has assured the complainant that the RC of the vehicle in question shall be provided to the complainant free of cost nor the complainant could produce any evidence that he has paid the charges of RC of the vehicle in question to opposite party No.1, so that opposite party No.1 could be made liable to get the RC of the vehicle in question prepared and provide the same to the complainant.
14. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record that opposite party No.1 was bound to provide RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant free of cost. As such the complainant is not entitled to RC of the said car from opposite party No.1 free of cost . Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove on record that he has made the full and final payment of the cost of the car in question to opposite party No.1 as is evident from the statement of account of the complainant i.e. copy of ledger of the account Ex.OP1/4. So the complainant also cannot claim the bill of the car in question from opposite party No.1 without payment of full amount of the price of the car in question to opposite party No.1.
15. Consequently we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant. Whereas opposite parties No.2 & 3 are not at all responsible to provide RC of the vehicle to the complainant.
16. Resultantly 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
