BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.12 of 2015
Date of Instt. 12.01.2015
Date of Decision :08.09.2015
Lalit Joshi son of Subhash Joshi R/o H.N.No.136, Defence Colony, Phase-I, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
Prestige Honda, Lally Motors PvtLtd, Gt Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar through its Mg.Director/Authorized Signatory.
.........Opposite party.
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Vishal Chaudhary Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.GS Mand, Auth.Rep.for opposite party.
Order
Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that in the month of October 2014, the complainant visited the showroom of opposite party as he wanted to purchase a new car for his personal use. It is necessary to mention that the sales person also told the complainant that if the complainant purchase the car before 8.10.2014, then the complainant has to pay only 6% of the amount of the car for the registration of the car and it is also necessary to mention that it is the rule of the District Transport Authority that the complainant has to pay only 6% to the opposite party for the registration of the vehicle. It was also told by the sales person of the opposite party if the complainant will purchase the car after 8.10.2014, then the complainant has to pay 8% for the registration of the car. The complainant again visited the showroom of the opposite party on 4.10.2014 and paid the token money of Rs.11,000/- to the opposite party vide receipt No.9149 dated 4.10.2014. After that the complainant again visited the showroom of opposite party on 6.10.2014 for the purchase of new Honda Amaze Car after completing all the formalities for loan of the said car. On the same day, complainant produced all the documents for the purchase of Honda Amaze Car from the opposite party vide invoice No.624 dated 6.10.2014 and the complainant also paid Rs.17831/- to the opposite party for insurance of the said car and Rs.4000/- for logistic charges vide invoice No.627 dated 6.10.2014 and also paid for the temporary number of the said car vide No.639 dated 6.10.2014 and as per the rules of District Transport Authority, the complainant paid Rs.39,240/- in cash i.e 6% of the invoice value for the registration certificate of the said car vide receipt serial No.9181 as the dealer has to submit the documents for the registration of the said vehicle before the District Transport Authority and it is the duty of the seller to submit the registration charges to District Transport Authority online on the same day. On the same date, the opposite party delivered the said car to the complainant and assured the complainant that the opposite party will deposit the registration charges to the District Transport Authority on the same date i.e 6.10.2014 and the opposite party told the complainant to come after 15 days for receiving the registration certificate from opposite party. After 15 days, when the complainant visited the showroom of the opposite party for receiving the registration certificate of the said car, then the opposite party told the complainant to come after 15 days. Then after 15 days, the complainant again visited the showroom of the opposite party for receiving the registration certificate of the said car but the opposite party told the complainant that registration certificate can not be delivered as the rate of registration was revised/increased to 8% instead of 6%. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to deliver the RC of the car to him. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses and further refund of logistic charges.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its authorized representative and filed a written reply raising preliminary objection that complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as the complainant did not hire the service for the purpose of RC and nothing was received or paid by him as consideration for the purpose of registration certificate. It further pleaded that it is alleged by the complainant in his complaint that he paid amount of Rs.39240/- in cash @ 6% of the invoice value for the registration certificate but the complainant deliberately concealed the material facts that the said amount relates to Tax and dispute involving matter of Tax is outside the purview of the C.P.Act, 1986 as well as enhancement of Tax amount by the State Government is out of the purview of the C.P.Act, 1986. The complainant has also willfully and deliberately concealed the factual circumstances regarding non payment of tax of the registration certificate. In this particular case the complainant deposited Rs.39240/- as tax for registration certificate on 6.10.2014 afternoon and on the next date tax from 6% to 8% was increased by the State Government without any prior notice as such the complainant is liable to pay increased tax of 2% to the State Government but without disclosing such material facts the complainant succeeded in filing the complaint on false pleading and assertion. It was in the knowledge of the complainant before filing the complaint that tax was increased by the Punjab Government vide notification 7.10.2014. Increase of tax w.e.f 7.10.2014 is also applicable on the vehicle sold on 6.10.2014 due to certain reason like if entire payment is made in cash as well as one week time to process all the relevant documents required to be furnished with registration authority if same is supplied by the customer in time also whereas in the present case final payment of the car was paid by the complainant on 11.10.2014 as well as document for applying of registration certificate was also submitted and signed on 11.10.2014 by the complainant but in its complaint such facts have not been pleaded by the complainant as such complaint is not maintainable and Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and as such complaint deserves to be dismissed. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, authorized representative of opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of the opposite party and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party.
6. The objection of the opposite party that the complainant can not be treated as consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is without any merit. The complainant admittedly purchased the car from the opposite party and paid the registration charges to it vide receipt dated 6.10.2014 Ex.C5. The car was sold to the complainant on 6.10.2014 and even temporary certificate of registration Ex.C6 was issued to him on 6.10.2014. The invoice regarding the sale of the car Ex.C1 is also dated 6.10.2014. So from all the above narrated facts, it is evident that car was sold to the complainant on 6.10.2014 and the complainant made payment of registration charges i.e Rs.39240/- to opposite party on 6.10.2014. The second objection of opposite party that dispute relating to tax is outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act is also without any substance. In the present case, the opposite party has received the registration charges from the complainant on 6.10.2014 and we are to see if there was any deficiency in service on part of opposite party in depositing the registration charges with the Registration Authority/ DTO in time or not. Notification No.8/1/98-1T2/1107 dated 28.6.2011 issued by Government of Punjab Department of Transport provides as under:-
"That no vehicle which is sold by the dealer and any native of Punjab shall be allowed to be driven/taken out of the showroom unless the temporary registration number is allotted to the vehicle by the dealer after getting the registration fee, HPA fee and the Motor Vehicles Tax(in lump sum) as fixed by the Government from time to time. The Motor Vehicles Tax and fee etc received from the purchaser/owner of the vehicle shall be deposited online system into the State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day by the dealer".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7. So as per above notification, the opposite party was required to deposit the registration charges in State Bank of India online on the same day i.e 6.10.2014 but it did not deposit the registration charges on the same day and it constitute deficiency in service on its part. The registration charges were increased w.e.f 8.10.2014 vide notification dated 7.10.2014. So the opposite party was at fault in not depositing the registration charges online on the same day i.e 6.10.2014 and if the registration charges were increased subsequently then opposite party is to blame for the same and complainant is not at fault. Besides registration charges, no other point was argued by learned counsel for the complainant.
8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed to apply for and obtain the RC of the car sold to the complainant and deliver the same to him without any delay. Without RC the complainant can not ply the car on road. So the complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
08.09.2015 Member Member President
