Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/426/2023

KUSHMENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANCHKULA GODWHEELS PVT. LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/426/2023
Date of Institution	:	04/09/2023
Date of Decision	:	05/03/2024

 

Kushmender S/o Onkar Singh, R/o H.No.404 C, Gali No.05, Shastri Nagar, Mani Majra, Chandigarh 160101.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Panchkula Goldwheels Pvt. Ltd. (12869) Authorised Dealers for Bajaj Auto Ltd. Address: Plot 145, Industrial Area Phase-2, Panchkula-134113, Plot 145, Industrial Area Phase-2, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Director.

2.     Registering & Licensing Authority, Sector-17, Chandigarh, through its Head/Incharge.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Jatin Sahrawat, Advocate for OP-1
	:	Sh. Sachin, ADA for OP-2

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Kushmender, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 30.6.2023, complainant had purchased a Platina 100 ES Drum motorcycle (hereinafter referred to as “subject motorcycle”) from OP-1 for a total sum of ₹67,424/- vide tax invoice (Annexure C-1) by paying the same from his own pocket and also on obtaining loan from Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Before purchase of the subject motorcycle, OP-1 had assured the complainant that the same is defect free and the complainant will not face any problem for getting the same registered with OP-2 at Chandigarh. After the purchase of the subject motorcycle, OP-1 had issued temporary certificate of registration valid w.e.f. 22.7.2023 to 21.1.2024. However, on the sale certificate the date was mentioned as 30.6.2023 and even the insurance policy was also issued on the said date. Copies of the temporary certificate of registration, sales certificate and insurance policy are Annexure C-3 to C-5 respectively.  Soon after purchase of the subject motorcycle, complainant approached OP-2 for getting the same registered and submitted all the necessary documents.  However, OP-2 did not register the subject motorcycle as the date of purchase in tax invoice, sales certificate and insurance policy was 30.6.2023 whereas on the temporary certificate of registration it was reflected as 22.7.2023 and due to mis-match of dates, file was returned back to the complainant by OP-2.  At the relevant time, when the documents were submitted, the registration charges of the subject motorcycle were ₹2,050/- whereas the same were enhanced to ₹7,500/-, which were demanded by OP-2 from the complainant later on.  In this manner, the subject motorcycle could not be registered by OP-2 due to aforesaid negligent act of OP-1 who had issued the temporary registration certificate of a different date than the date on which it was purchased and the sales certificates etc. were issued by OP-1 to the complainant. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, especially when the complainant has been put in a position by OP-1 to pay more fee for registration of the subject motorcycle for obtaining the permanent registration certificate.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their separate written versions.
3. In its written version, OP-1 admitted that the complainant had purchased the subject motorcycle from the answering OP and he was explained about all the features of the same by the Sales Executive.  It is further alleged that the process of registration was also explained to the complainant by intimating that OP-1 is authorised for permanent registration of Bajaj motorcycles under State of Haryana.  It is denied that the complainant has paid a sum of ₹67,424/-, rather he had paid an amount of ₹40,000/- whereas the remaining amount was financed by Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.  It is further alleged that the subject motorcycle was delivered to the complainant on the day of its purchase, but, partial documents could not be given to him as the accessibility of Vaahan was not available on that date and it is only after clearance on declaration of new guidelines released by OP-2 for registration of two wheelers, the original registration papers from the dealership were processed for registration. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
4. In its written version, OP-2, inter alia, took preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action.  It is alleged that, in fact, as OP-1 had issued sales certificate, invoice and insurance policy of the subject motorcycle on 30.6.2023 and temporary registration certificate was issued on 24.7.2023 i.e. after 23 days from the date of sale of vehicle, which is clear violation of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and accordingly the vehicle was not registered by the answering OP as the subject motorcycle could not be delivered without registration – whether temporary or permanent – and the sale of the subject vehicle cannot be considered as complete sale.  It is further alleged that as motor vehicle tax rates were revised vide notification dated 7.7.2023, which were applicable w.e.f. 11.7.2023, the registration charges at the revised rate are required to be deposited.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
5. In separate rejoinders, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the subject motorcycle on 30.6.2023 from OP-1, as is also evident from the tax invoice Annexure C-2 and on the same day the sales certificate (Annexure C-4) and insurance policy (Annexure C-5), were also issued to the complainant qua the subject motorcycle, but, the temporary certificate of registration was issued by OP-1 on 22.7.2023 i.e. after about 22 days of the sale of the same, as is also evident from Annexure C-3, and also the subject motorcycle could not be registered by OP-2 on finding variation in the date of sale and temporary registration certificate, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant or if the consumer complaint of the complainant, being not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Perusal of copy of tax invoice (Annexure C-2) clearly indicates that the subject motorcycle was sold by OP-1 to the complainant on 30.6.2023 and on the same day sales certificate (Annexure C-4) was issued alongwith insurance certificate, as is also evident from Annexure C-5.  Thus, one thing is clear that all the aforesaid three documents were issued to the complainant on 30.6.2023. However, perusal of Annexure C-3 clearly indicates that the temporary registration certificate was issued to the complainant on 22.7.2023 only i.e. after about 22 days. 
   3. The Registering Authority, Chandigarh/OP-2  has come with the specific plea that OP-1, being dealer of the subject motorcycle, could not have delivered the same to the complainant without issuing the temporary or permanent registration certificate to the purchaser and, in the present case, as OP-1 has delivered the subject motorcycle without issuing the temporary registration certificate, date on which was found mis-matching by OP-2 at the time of scrutiny of documents, OP-1 has indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and it can only be held responsible for non-registration of the subject motorcycle by OP-2 for permanent registration.  In this regard reliance has been placed on Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the same is reproduced below for ready reference :-

“42. Delivery of vehicle subject to registration.- No holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent.”

 

4. Thus, one thing is clear on record that OP-1 is negligent in delivering the subject motorcycle to the complainant/purchaser on 30.6.2023 without the registration – temporary or permanent, which is clear violation of afore-extracted Rule 42 and the said act itself clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1 as a result of which the subject motorcycle could not be registered by OP-2 as the temporary registration certificate was of a later date i.e. 22.7.2023. 
5. As it has further come on record that rates for registration of vehicles have already been revised by OP-2 w.e.f. 11.7.2023 and the subject vehicle is to be registered on payment of revised rate, which as per the case of the complainant is now ₹7,500/- instead of the earlier ₹2,050/-, hence OP-1 is liable to pay the differential amount i.e. ₹7500 – 2,050 = ₹5,450/- to the complainant besides assisting the complainant in registration of the subject motorcycle by completing the necessary formalities/ documentation etc., if any, required from its end.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint against OP-1 and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed against OP-1.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-

1. to pay the aforesaid amount of ₹5,450/- to the complainant and also assist him in registration of the subject motorcycle by completing the necessary formalities/documentation etc., if any, required from its end.
2. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by OP-1 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice has been proved against OP-2, the consumer complaint against it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/03/2024 hg	sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member