Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 03
Instituted on : 04.01.2021
Decided on : 09.04.2024
Sukhbir age 28 years, son of Shamsher, resident of VPO Nasirpur(77) Chamarian, District Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
PUSHKAR AUTOMOBILES, Dealer no. HR/14/TC/2019/1, Jhajjar, Kuldeep Chowk, Jhajjar(Haryana) through its Prop/Partner/Principal Officer/Authorized person. …………...Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. SurenderHooda, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S.Bhathee, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 19.03.2020, he visited the showroom of the opposite party for purchasing a new motorcycle of Splender Plus manufactured by Hero Motocorp Ltd. The complainant paid Rs.66000/- including RC & insurance charges on the demand of opposite party. The opposite party issued a bill bearing invoice no.11995BC20S1883 dated 21.03.2020 and receipt dated 24.03.2020. They assured the complainant that new Model of motor cycle will be delivered to the complainant and they delivered the motorcycle bearing Engine no. HA10AGLHA44601 and Chassis no.MBLHAW087NHA31117, Model 1/2020 and assured that same is of new model. They further assured the complainant to deliver the registration certificate of the alleged vehicle after one month. Thereafter when the complainant approached the opposite party to get the registration certificate of the said vehicle, then official of the opposite party avoided the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant was shocked when he came to know that opposite party inspite of delivering the new Model of motor cycle had delivered another Model Motor cycle of BS-4 to the complainant. As per Government instructions the registration of the delivered vehicle is not possible after expiry of the prescribed period. He repeatedly requested the opposite party to take back the alleged delivered vehicle and replace the same with new Model motorcycle or to return the amount paid by him. But the opposite party did not pay any heed towards the genuine requests of the complainant and refused to change the motor cycle. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to deliver the new model motor cycle with all relevant documents such as insurance and RC etc. to the complainant or to return the amount of Rs.66,000/- paid by the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. It is further prayed that opposite party be also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that they never assured the complainant to supply any alleged new model motorcycle, even the complainant himself visited the showroom of the opposite party to purchase motorcycle of his own wish. They were bound to deliver the same model, which has been selected by the complainant. After purchasing the vehicle, all the relevant documents such as bill, invoice, insurance, temporary certificate etc. were prepared in the name of the complainant. The file for the registration of vehicle, after submitting the fee/charges was prepared and they were ready to submit the file for registration of vehicle to the concerned Registration Authority. But the complainant intended to submit the file himself for registration of vehicle and hence the same was given to the complainant. The complainant himself did not submit the file to concerned authority, due to which the same may not have been registered. It is further submitted that the price of model 2020 Splender+BS6 is Rs.74,000/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 03.09.2021. Learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW-1/A, documents Ex. R1 to R5 and also tendered documents Ex.R6 & Ex.R7 in additional evidence and closed his evidence on 05.10.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case the vehicle was purchased bythe complainant fromthe respondent on dated 21.03.2020 and the temporary registration was issued on dated 24.03.2020. The main contention of the complainant is that the respondent has delivered an another model of motorcycle of BS-IV instead of the vehicle selected by him for purchase. The motorcycle which was delivered to the complainant was BS-IV model so the same could not be registered. We have minutely perused the documents. No doubt, the vehicle could not be registered in the registration authority because as per the Govt. instructions the vehicle having BS-IV engine can be registered upto 31.03.2020 as per the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the present case the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on dated 21.03.2020 and the same was not registered with the registration authority. The respondent officials have submitted that they have handed over the relevant documents required for the registration of the vehicle in the registration authority i.e. original bill, insurance, temporary registration certificate, invoice etc. to the complainant. After receiving these documents the complainant also issued a receipt and the same is placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R7 in its additional evidence. They have further submitted that complainant shown his intention that he himself will deposit the papers with the registration authority and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part.
6. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The estimatebill/invoice Ex.C3has been issued by the opposite party for Rs.66000/-. Ex.C4is the invoice amounting to Rs.53200/-. Meaning thereby the vehicle was purchased for Rs.53200/- and the insurance charges were charged for Rs.4846/-. Complainant also spent some more amount on the temporary registration , new registration, smart card services, postal charges fee etc. as Rs.2130/- . As per our view the transport department has launched a portal for the registration of the vehicles. It is the prime duty of the respondent to fill the relevant particulars of the vehicle sold by him to the complainant and also upload the documents on the portal, which were required for the registration of the vehicle but the respondent failed to upload the same or registered the vehicle. The respondent placed on record a document Ex.R3. The perusal of this document itself shows that respondent officials received an amount of Rs.2130/- from the complainant regarding the new registration, temporary registration, smart card services, postal receipt dated 21.03.2020 from the complainant. Temporary registration was placed on record as Ex.R4. The perusal of Ex.R4 itself shows that temporary registration was issued by Pushkar Automobiles i.e. respondent. So as per our opinion it is the prime duty of the respondent officials to register the vehicle on the Vaahan portal and also upload the required documents on the portal for the registration of the vehicle. But they have failed to do so. It has been wrongly pleaded by the respondent that they have handed over all the documents to the complainant for manual submission regarding the registration with the registration authority. We cannot believe that the documents placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R7 were submitted by the opposite party after uploading the same on Vaahan portal. It is the prime duty of the seller of the vehicle to fill the required particulars of the vehicle and to upload the documents on the Vaahan portal . So no proper service has been provided to the complainant by the opposite party, due to which vehicle has not been got registered by the registration authority. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to refund the price of vehicle alongwith insuranceand registration charges i.e. total Rs.60176/- (Rs.53200/- + 4846/- + Rs.2130/-) to the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.60176/-(Rupees sixty thousand one hundred and seventy six only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the first complaint i.e.04.01.2021 till its realization and to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to return the vehicle in question to the opposite party at the time of making payment by the opposite party
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
09.04.2024.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
