Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1234/2015

Balwant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Park Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

Shri A.K.Bhalla

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1234

                                                Instituted on:    09.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.08.2016

 

Balwant Singh son of Shri Gurmail Singh, resident of 22 Acres, Kothi No.132, Nearby Ambay Garments, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Park Hyundai, Branch Office at Village Kamomajra Kalan, After IOC Depot, Jind Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/authorised signatory.

2.     HDFC Bank Limited, Branch Office: Paka College Road, Barnala, through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri A.K. Bhalla Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Balwant Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one car having Model I20 Asta 1.2 BSIV from OP number and as such the complainant paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- in cash on 26.9.2014 against receipts dated 9686 and 9692 and the remaining amount of Rs.6,06,438/- was paid by OP number 2  on 30.9.2014 through fund transfer system and the delivery of the vehicle was made to the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that the OP issued also temporary registration number for the period from 29.9.2014 to 28.10.2014 and further issued another temp. registration certificate for the period from 25.10.2014 to 24.10.2014. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.7,32,438/- to OP number 1 for the value of the car including insurance, RC and other necessary charges. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant also paid a sum of Rs.76,000/- at the time of delivery of the car on 29.9.2014, but the OP issued receipt for Rs.40,000/- only and told that the amount of Rs.36,000/- is on account of registration charges as per the company rules.  Further case of the complainant is that the OPs did not issue the registration certificate of the car, despite the fact he approached the Ops so many times, due to which the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment and has asserted deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable,  that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs nor the complainant paid any amount for registration of the vehicle and that the Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question and receipt of payment of Rs.6,87,999.30 is admitted and has been stated that the OP number 1 has received Rs.24,265/- on account of insurance charges and Rs.6,61,947/- on account of price of the car.   It is specifically denied that the complainant paid any amount for registration of the vehicle.

 

3.             Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 was proceeded exparte on 23.11.2015.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 copies of receipts, Ex.C-3 copy of sanction of loan amount, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 copies of temporary registration number, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 copies of bills, Ex.C-8 copy of insurance policy, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-12 copies of conversation, Ex.C-13 CD and Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15 affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP-1/2 copy of ledger and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the car in question from OP number 1 after raising the loan from OP number 2.  It is further an admitted fact that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to OP number 1 vide receipts number 9686 and 9692 dated 26.09.2014 and 29.09.2014, respectively, copies of which on record are Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2.  It is further an admitted fact that the amount of Rs.606438/- was transferred to the OP number 1 by OP number 2 on account of loan raised by the complainant against the purchase of the vehicle.  In the present case, the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.7,32,438/- to the OP number 1 regarding the purchase of the vehicle in question which includes insurance, registration charges and other necessary charges.  After carefully perusing of the whole case file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the Ops have miserably failed to produce on record the relevant record i.e. what was the price of the vehicle in question on 29.09.2014, when the same was delivered to the complainant and on what account the amount of Rs.7,32,438/- was recovered from the complainant.  The OP number 1 has produced only the copy of ledger and an affidavit on record, which are on record as Ex.Op1/1 and Ex.OP1/2.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP number 1 that why they did not produce on record the copy of invoice regarding the sale of the vehicle in question and the details about the price of the vehicle. A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that from the very beginning the case of the complainant is that though the OP number 1 charged the amount of Rs.36,000/- from the complainant on account of registration charges of the vehicle in question, but the OP number 1 did not get prepared the registration certificate of the vehicle in question, more so when the original bills and other documents are with the Op number 1.  Further there is no document on record produced by Op number 1 to show that the OP number 1 ever called upon the complainant to pay the charges for the registration of the vehicle in question, if not paid by the complainant.  Further it is the practice in Punjab, where it is mandatory for the purchasers of the vehicle to get the registration certificate prepared from the dealer (who sells the vehicle) meaning thereby the OP number 1 was duty bound to get prepared the registration certificate from the complainant, more so when, the OP number 1 has already received the charges for the same.  As such, we feel that by not delivering the registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant, the OP number 1 is not only deficient in service, but also has indulged in unfair trade practice by not delivering the registration certificate of the car in question, as the complainant also deprived from using the car in question in absence of the registration certificate of the car.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where Ops are deficient in rendering service to the complainant.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to deliver the registration certificate of the car in question.  We further order OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.  However, the complaint against OP number 2 , i.e. HDFC Bank Limited, is dismissed.

 

8.                     This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 3, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member