BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.70 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.02.2015

Date of Decision: 07.06.2017

Major Divya Grover d/o Sh. Manohar Grover R/o H. No.66 Gujral Nagar, Jalandhar City.

At Present R/o Quarter No.48/3 KM area, Military Station, Bikaner Cantt, Rajasthan ..........Complainant

Versus

Prestige Honda, Lally Motors P. Ltd., Paragpur, G.T. Road, Jalandhar City through its Incharge/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. KC Malhotra, Adv and Smt. Harleen Kaur, Adv Counsel for complainant.

OP exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint presented by complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant booked a City Honda car on 28.08.2014 from OP manufactured by Honda Cars India Ltd. through its agent. Going by assurance representation and believing gentleman business ethics and advertisement, the complainant purchased said car at a total price of Rs.8,47,118/- vide Invoice dated 28.08.2014. The OP at the time of sale and delivery of new car also collected charges/amount for issue of registration certificate/temporary and permanent as was required by Punjab/State Government from the complainant. Accordingly statutory binding mandatory notification/obligate on OP to issue temporary registration number at the time of sale and also obtain permanent registration of new car from DTO, Jalandhar. It was sole responsibility of OP to complete and comply with all the requirements and formalities in time and ensure that permanent registration certificate of new car is issued by DTO Jalandhar and thereafter handed over the same to the complainant. OP collected money for temporary mark charges. Apart from these payment, the complainant paid Rs.51,850/- for permanent registration number to OP who was duty bound to deliver and provide the same to the complainant within validity period i.e. before expiry date of temporary registration number or 30 days period from the date of purchase i.e. 28.08.2014.

2. That although the car was bought on 28.08.2014 but because of typographical error on the side of OP, the sale certificate that in form No.21, OP has wrongly marked the delivery date as 26.09.2014. The OP issued a temporary registration number PB08 BX (T) 7278 valid for 30 days from the date of purchase. That going by the representation/assurances made by OP and its representative and believing the same as gentleman and professional one, the complainant agreed and made payment of Rs.51,850/- towards registration charges/Road Tax etc., to OP and the same was reflected. That after deposit of said amount, the complainant had been making enquiry regarding status of registration certificate and its delivery from the OP. The complainant was put off every time with stock reply that registration certificate will be available shortly and the complainant need not worry on this score. The complainant was struck and surprised to learn that OP had not deposited the amount fee/charges collected for registration certificate with Registering Authority/DTO within time and kept the same with OP. On one such visit the complainant was informed that the registration charges/road tax etc. could not be paid on time as its executive had wrongly calculated the amount of Rs.51,850/- whereas the amount to be paid was in actual Rs.54,477/-.

3. That the complainant at no point of time, from the date of purchase i.e. 28.08.2014 till the date when confronted by the complainant about the delay in procuring the permanent registration certificate and subsequent revised rates of road tax/registration charges by the Punjab Government, was informed about the fact of alleged miscalculation by the OP that actually amount of Rs.54,477/- was due. It appears that the OP have failed to explain as to how they calculated the amount of Rs.54,477/-. It seems that the OP wanted to wrongly and clandestily charge the complainant logistic charges along with registration charges/road tax charges. Consequently, on 07.10.2014, Punjab Government revised the rate of Road Tax and resultantly OP demanded Rs.18,500/- over and above the amount of Rs.51,850/- already paid so as to enable Registering Authority/DTO, Jalandhar to issue the registration certificate of the said car. The OP could not give any valid and plausible reason for non deposit of Registration Charges/Road Tax collected from the complainant on time for which OP was squarely to be blamed and the complainant cannot be faulted with on this score. That on account of above stated act of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP in not depositing the amount prior to the date i.e. 07.10.2014, the complainant cannot be made to suffer monetary loss and as such the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to pay back to the complainant the amount of Rs.18,500/- paid under protest only to get the registration certificate to be able to ply the car on the road without breaking the law of the land and further OP be directed to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and also pay cost of litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party and accordingly OP appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint, as filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of legal and is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this Forum by suppressing the material facts. The same would be evident from the submissions/objections taken in the succeeding paragraphs.

5. In the said case, the date of purchase is 28.08.2014, whereas amount of estimated Road Tax of Rs.51,850/- was deposited by the complainant only on 01.10.2014 and remaining road tax was deposited on 26.11.2014. In the entire complaint, the complainant nowhere disclosed the date of depositing amount of Rs.51,850/-. Further in para No.9 of the complaint, it is admitted by the complainant that he was informed that executive wrongly calculated the amount of Rs.51,850/- excluding other charges also and thereafter in para No.12 stated that consequently, on 07.10.2014, Punjab Government revised the rate of road tax so it is very much evident that well before revising the road tax by the Punjab Govt on 07.10.2014, the complainant was with the knowledge that due to mistake of the executive, payment of road tax was found short of Rs.2627/- and the same could not be deposited and further alleged that the complainant was required to pay the road tax at the time of purchasing of the vehicle but she refused to pay the road tax and submission of documents on the same date on the ground that she wants VIP number and she will manage its own level but later on she visited the respondent on 01.10.2014 and requested the respondent to accept road tax and documents of the vehicle back from her. Executive dealing with the complainant made the wrong calculation of Rs.51,850/- for road tax but later on respondent found that said calculation is wrong and amount is lesser by Rs.2627/- then she was informed immediately on next date of receiving road tax accordingly she took longer time and in between road tax rate were increased by the State Govt as such it is not a case that respondent charged illegally or in excess rather said amount being statutory hence provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable in this case and further stated that the complainant has handed over the said amount for depositing as a registration fee with the Registration Authority which cannot be said to be hiring or availing of services of the OPs. On merits, the factum of purchase of vehicle and depositing of the registration fee is admitted but the remaining allegations of the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

6. After filing written statement, the representative of the OP did not come present and ultimately OP was proceeded against exparte.

7. In order to prove her case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and supplementary affidavit Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

9. No doubt in this case, the OP after filing written statement did not bother to come present for contesting the case and ultimately the OP was proceeded against exparte and case of the complainant remain un-rebutted and un-challenged, but we are not bound to accept the un-rebutted version of the complainant rather it require more deep scrutiny whether the claim of the complainant is genuine or not, keeping in mind these factum, we are going through the pleading as well as documents placed on the file. The complainant alleged that she purchased a car manufactured by Honda City, after making a payment of Rs.8,47,118/- vide invoice dated 28.08.2014 and at the time of purchase, the complainant also paid registration charges of Rs.51,850/- and assurance was given by the OP that temporary registration is given and permanent registration certificate will be provided within 30 days from the date of purchase i.e. before the expiry of the date of temporary registration but the OP miserably failed to deposit the said registration charges in the office of DTO well within time rather the registration fee was increased from 07.10.2014 and as such the OP demanded more amount of Rs.18,500/- over and above the amount of Rs.51,850/- and as such there is a deficiency on the part of the OP and therefore, the complainant is entitled to get recovered the said amount of Rs.18,000/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

10. We thoroughly considered the version of the complainant and find that the plea of the complainant is rebutted by the OP by filing a written statement, though the OP is proceeded against exparte but if the OP has filed written statement, the same can be taken into consideration and as per written version of the OP, the amount has been deposited by the complainant herself late i.e. on 01.10.2014 and the said amount of Rs.51,850/- is wrongly calculated by the Clerical Staff of the OP and then on the very next day, the remaining amount of Rs.2627/- was demanded from the complainant but she did not pay the said amount and in the mean while, the Punjab Government revised the rate of Road Tax and then complainant deposited the revised tax of Rs.18,500/- on 26.11.2014 and as such there is no fault on the part of the OP rather it is fault on the part of the complainant. Therefore there is no deficiency on the part of the OP.

11. The version of the OP is not simply oral one rather the same is relied upon the documents placed on the file by the complainant in her evidence. For reference sake, we like to refer a computer generated copy of the payment system, the same is dated 01.10.2014, wherein the amount of registration is calculated Rs.51,827/- and this document is further corroborated with receipt whereby the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.51,850/- on 01.10.2014, the photostat copy of the receipt is Ex.C-10 and on the next date i.e. 02.10.2014, the matter in regard to wrong calculation of the registration charges came to the notice of the OP and they informed the complainant but she did not bother to deposit the said amount and apparently in the mean while, the rate of Road Tax was revised by the Government on 07.10.2014 and then the complainant is required to deposit the Road Charges/Registration Fee, as per revised rate and accordingly the complainant deposited the said amount on 26.11.2014 vide receipt Ex.C-12 and this document is further supported by an other document placed on the file by the complainant himself i.e. Ex.C-7 having two leafs and on the second leaf, signature of the complainant are very much available, it means the said document furnished/filled by the OP on 26.11.2014 and then complainant put her signature and whereby it is clearly established that the revised fee was deposited on 26.11.2014. So, ultimately we came to conclusion that handing over the registration charges through the OP is not covered the definition of hiring or availing of service of the OP. If so then, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in any manner and further there is no fault on the part of the OP for depositing the registration charges at a later stage rather the complainant herself has handed over the entire amount to the OP on 01.10.2014 and then the remaining on 26.11.2011 and therefore, complainant herself is at fault and accordingly we do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

07.06.2017 Member President