Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 72 of 2020
Date of Institution : 26.10.2020
Date of Decision : 26.04.2022
Balwinder Singh son of Pal Singh resident of village Khadoor Sahib, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.
…..Complainant
Versus
- R.T.O Amritsar through its authorized signatory/ concerned official,
- Narain Automobiles, 3/2, G.T. Road, Sant Nagar, Amritsar through is authorized signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 34, 35 and 36 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Ms. Nidhi Verma Member
For Complainant Sh. K.K. Dwivedi Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 1 Sh. Manoj Harry Advocate.
For Opposite Party No. 2 Sh. S.S. Channa Advocate
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 34, 35 and 36 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant namely Balwinder Singh has purchased a vehicle TGATA ACE from the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 3,49,870/- which was financed. As per the rules of the Punjab Government, it was the bounded duty of the auto mobile dealers i.e. opposite party to get the registration certificate well within time to hand over the same to the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, the opposite party has given a wrong registration certificate bearing No. PB02-BT-4039. This fact came to the knowledge and notice of the complainant when the police of P.S. Talwandi Chaudharian challaned the concerned vehicle and the police confirmed the registration bearing No. PB02-BT-4039 online. Then this fact came to the notice of the complainant that the registration number PB02-BT-4039 is of a Pulsar Bajaj Motorcycle. After 20.6.2019, the complainant many times approached the opposite party for getting the correct registration certificate of vehicle in question so purchased by the complainant from the opposite party, but the opposite party has failed to do so. There is great deficiency in service of the opposite party. The opposite party has committed criminal breach of trust as well as forgery with the complainant and has intentionally and knowingly given the registration certificate of motorcycle as stated above. RTO is the RC issuing authority as such, he has been arrayed as party. The complainant has prayed that the complainant may be granted following reliefs:-
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to hand over the correct registration certificate of vehicle which has purchased by the complainant from the opposite party, instead of registration certificate of motorcycle.
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant.
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents i.e. self attested copy of bill of vehicle Ex. C-2, self attested copy of Challan dated 20.6.2019 Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-4.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not legally maintainable as the same has been filed by the complainant just to harass the opposite party No. 1 and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from opposite party No. 2 and he had also issued the requisite documents to the complainant. The complainant has not approached the opposite party No. 1 at any point of time nor submitted any document to opposite party No. 1 so there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
3 The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is gross abuse of process of law as purported complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands. Various material facts have been concealed and distorted version of the facts have been deliberately presented in or to pressurize and harass the opposite party No.2. The present complaint is filed without any cause of action and present complaint has been filed with malafide intention of causing undue harassment to the opposite party No.2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very short ground. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The purpose of filing the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act is not to make profit out of litigation and to harassment by way of filing such frivolous complaint, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party No.2. On Merits, it was pleaded that the complainant purchased one TATA ACE from the opposite party No. 2 on 21.6.2013 for the total consideration of Rs. 3,49,569.91 Paise vide challan No. NarAut-1314-00193. The duplicate copy of the same is Ex. OP2/2. The vehicle purchased by the complainant comes under the category of commercial vehicle whose registration certificate is to be issued by concerned registering authority after the inspection which is done by the MVI and when the tax is paid and at the time of deficiency in service to the complainant all relevant documents were handed over to him which were necessary for the registration of vehicle in question. So far as issuing the registration bearing No. PB02-BT-4039 is concerned, it was temporary registration number which was issued to the complainant on 21.6.2013 and the same was valid only for one month. Photostat copy of form C.R Temporary is Ex. OP2/3. If the complainant is running the vehicle in question on the roads with the temporary number, it is not the fault of the opposite party No.2. this fact also proves that till date the complainant is running the commercial vehicle without its inspection from the concerned registering authority as well as without paying the tax to the state Govt. If the police challaned the vehicle in question, it is the sole responsibility of complainant as he is running the vehicle on the basis of temporary registration Number. The opposite party No. 2 is not liable to hand over the correct registration certificate because the vehicle purchased by the complainant comes under the category commercial vehicle whose registration certificate is issued by the concerned registering authority. The opposite party No.2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record affidavit of Ravinder Mohan Gneral Manager M/s Narain Automobiles 3/2 G.T. Road Amritsar, sale invoice Ex. OP2/2, form C.R. Temp. Ex. OP2/3.
4 The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite party No. 2 and pleaded that wrong so committed by the opposite party no. 2 with the complainant is intentional one and malafide one and as such, the opposite party No. 2 cannot escape itself from legal obligation arising from the contract in question. There is lack of imperfection in service of opposite party No. 2 and as such, the opposite party No. 2 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for wrong done by it with the complainant. The complainant has denied the other contents of the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint and prayed that the present may be allowed.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the documents on the file.
6 In the present case, the case of the complaint is that the complainant has purchased TATA ACE from the opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 3,49,870/- and same was financed and the opposite party and has given wrong registration certificate bearing No. PB02-BT-4039. The vehicle of the complainant was challaned by the police and that time complainant came to know that the registration No. PB02-BT-4039 is of a Pulsar Bajaj Motorcycle. On the other hands the case of the opposite party No. 1 is that the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 1 for registration of the vehicle alongwith documents. The case of the opposite party No.2 is that the complainant purchased one TATA ACE from the opposite party No. 2 on 21.6.2013 for the total consideration of Rs. 3,49,569.91 Paise vide challan No. NarAut-1314-00193 and duplicate copy of the challan is Ex. OP2/2. The vehicle purchased by the complainant comes under the category commercial vehicle whose registration certificate is to be issued by concerned registering authority after the inspection which is done by the MVI and when the tax is paid and at the time of delivery of vehicle to the complainant all relevant documents were handed over to him which were necessary for the registration of vehicle in question. The registration bearing No. PB02-BT-4039 was temporary registration number which was issued to the complainant on 21.6.2013 and the same was valid only for one month. Photostat copy of form C.R Temporary is Ex. OP2/3. The complainant has placed ion record Challan form Ex. C-2 amounting to Rs. 3,49,870/- and this relates to vehicle price. The complainant has not placed on record any document thus showing that the complainant has paid any amount relating to Registration certificate of the vehicle to the opposite party No. 2. The complainant has also not averred in his complaint that he has deposited the registration certificate fee to the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has issued the temporary Number to the vehicle of the complainant which was valid only for one month. As per Ex. OP2/3 i.e. Form C.R. Temp. shows the number PB02-BT-4039 as temporary registration and it has been specifically written on the same that under the provisions of Section 43 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the vehicle described above has been temporarily registered and registration is valid from 21.6.2013. Meaning thereby that it was valid till 20.7.2013 as per rules. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is alleging that the opposite parties have issued wrong registration number as such, there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. But the opposite parties have issued only temporary registration number and complainant was bound to get the permanent registration number within one month after fulfilling the necessary documentation but the complainant is failed to comply with rules and regulations made for the registration of vehicle. Further the opposite party No. 1 has allotted the said number to Pulsar Motorcycle as per rules , as such, opposite parties are not in deficiency of service as well as there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant was plying the vehicle for a long time on the temporary number and has not approached the opposite party No. 1 for its registration and has not deposited any amount with the opposite party No. 1, therefore, there is no any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the oppose the parties.
7 In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. This complaint could not be decided within prescribed period due to heavy pendency of cases in this commission, additional charges of President in other District Commissions as well as duty of Bench at Camp Court, Amritsar and due to COVID-19. Copy of order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
26.4.2022
