Haryana

StateCommission

A/825/2015

LEO EARTHMOVERS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

POOSA RAM - Opp.Party(s)

A.S.KHARA

30 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     825 of 2015

Date of Institution:     28.09.2015

Date of Decision :     30.05.2016

 

1.     M/s Leo Earthmovers Private Limited, 12/2 Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana, through its General Manager/Director.

 

2.     M/s Leo Earthmovers Private Limited, G.T. Karnal Road, Village Dhaturi, District Sonipat through its Branch Manager.

         (Appeal filed through Abnesh Kumar Saxena, Manager Accounts)

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1&3

Versus

 

1.      Poosa Ram s/o Sh. Puna Ram, Resident of Village Rasoi, Tehsil and District Sonipat.

Respondent/Complainant

 

2.      JCB India Limited HQ/Plant 23/7, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                      Proforma Respondent/OP No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri A.S. Khara, Advocate for appellants.

Shri Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 - proforma.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been filed by M/s Leo Earthmovers Private Limited-Opposite Parties, against the order dated August 21^st, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint No.157 of 2014 filed by Poosa Ram-Complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was allowed, issuing direction as under:-

“…we hereby direct the complainant to pay Rs.67500/- to the respondents and the remaining amount incurred on the registration of the vehicle shall be borne by the respondents. The respondents are directed that on receipt of the amount of Rs.67500/-, they shall get registered the vehicle of the complainant with the registering authorities by spending the remaining amount and further to supply the form 21 and 22 to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to supply the other documents to the respondents, if needed for the registration of the RC of the vehicle.”    

2.      The respondent/complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that he purchased one J.C.B. machine (a machine used for digging and excavating), bearing Engine No.H00068126, Chassis No.HAR3DXSSH01866091, vide invoice Exhibit P-1, from the Opposite Parties/appellants on April 8^th, 2014 for Rs.22,53,000.08. It was stated that at the time of delivery, the opposite party No.1/appellant gave temporary Registration Certificate which was valid for one month, besides the opposite party No.1 wrongly charged excess amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Stating that VAT should have been charged @ 5% as per the prevalent scheme issued by the Government. The opposite parties also did not issue forms - 21 and 22 which led to imposing of penalty upon the complainant for late registration of the machine in question. 

3.      Notice being issued, the opposite parties did not contest the complaint despite service and they were proceeded exparte.

4.      Though the appellants/opposite parties were proceeded exparte, however, a perusal of the file shows that the complainant/respondent No.1 had been supplied Form - 21 –Sale Certificate (Annexure A-1) alongwith Form-22, both dated 08.04.2014, on the date the JCB machine was sold. Besides Temporary Registration Certificate under Section 43 of Haryana Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 and a Warranty Certificate were also issued. The complainant was also supplied Sale Invoice.

5.      These are the only documents required for the purpose of registration. The allegations of the complainant that it was for the opposite parties/appellants to arrange for permanent Registration Certificate of the JCB machine from the Registering Authority, cannot be accepted as it is purchaser of a vehicle who has to apply for getting the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority by filling up necessary forms etcetera. Since the documents as required under the Motor Vehicle Act and the rules framed thereunder were supplied to the complainant, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As alleged regarding excess charging of VAT, a perusal of the District Forum file shows that VAT had been charged as per notification issued by State of Haryana, under The Haryana Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 2013. Thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties is established on the record. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

6.      In view of the above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 30.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL