Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/79

Baldev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Motors pvt ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

 

                                                                   Consumer Complaint No.79 of 2022

                                                                   Date of Decision:  31.03.2023

 

Baldev Singh aged about 60 years son of Raju Ram, resident of Village Rainsra PO Kahanpur Khuhi, Tehsil Shri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar 

                                                                                      …..Complainant

                                                 Versus

1. Raj Motors Private Limited, authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, resident of VPO Chhoti Gandhon, NH 21, Rupnagar through its Manager

 

2. SDM/Registering Authority RTO Office Near HMT Hotel Rupnagar Tehsil and District Rupnagar.    

(Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act)

QUORUM:

                   KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

                   RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

 

For complainant:            Sh. Amandeep Saini, Advocate

For OP1:                        Sh. Harsh Rathour, Advocate 

 For OP2:                       None

 

 ORDER

PER KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the complainant had purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.PB-12-T-9283 from OP1 on 26.2.2015 for a sum of Rs.6,60,000/- for his personal use and purchased being agriculturist. Due to the mistake of the OP1 and OP2 an entry of hypothecation of UCO Bank was made in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question but the complainant never taken any loan against the said vehicle from UCO Bank.

Then the complainant filed a complaint in the Ld. Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 19.2.2021 and then the complainant has filed the execution application for directing the OP2 to delete the entry of hypothecation from the RC of the vehicle in question and the Ld. Commissioner has allowed the application on 19.2.2021 and passed the order, which is reproduced as under:-

“ That the OP3 will rectify and will remove the hypothecation entry of the OP2 on the registration certificate of the complainant as and when the complainant approached the OP3 within thirty days from today. The OP2 which is a UCO Bank will also give in writing to the complainant that no outstanding amount is pending against the complainant and will give him the clean chit. After receiving the clearance certificate regarding hypothecation from OP2, the OP3 which is licensing authority i.e. SDM Rupnagar will remove the entry of hypothecation in the registration certificate of the complainant. This order will be part of the judgment passed by this Commission previously on 19.3.2020.

Now as per the complainant, the said hypothecation entry stands deleted by the concerned RTO Authorities but the RC has not been still issued to the complainant. The entry regarding the hypothecation was deleted and in this respect only a screen report has been issued by the office of the OP2 showing the deletion of entry of hypothecation. After deleting the entry of hypothecation the OP2 has not issued the RC of the vehicle in question without any reason and cause. When, the complainant approached the OP2 for issuance of the RC to the complainant then the OP2 orally told him that the complainant has to pay the penalty of taxes for the issuance of the Registration Certificate. The complainant requested the OP2 that there is no delay on the part of the complainant and the delay occurred due to the litigation pending in the Ld. Commissioner. It is further averred that there is a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. Due to this act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has suffered monetary and physical loss and prayed for the following reliefs against hte Ops:-

1. To direct the Ops to issue RC of the vehicle in question
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation
3. To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages
4. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the OP1 has appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is to seek irrelevant claims even after the Hon’ble Commission has passed the order in favour of the complainant on 19.3.2020 but the complainant has failed to complete the procedure to clear his hypothecation from the RC by denying the payment of mandatory taxes levied Govt on every vehicle and by doing so complainant just pretending himself as a victim from the hands of the OP. On merits, it is stated that complainant has failed to pay his outstanding even before the order of Hon’ble District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ropar, and also failed to prove his whole allegations during the course of initial bivouac against the OP and he himself own intentionally broke the procedure with the OP2 herein referred as RTO office and filed another complaint before this Court and at the present, none of his allegations proves the deficiency and it does not stands in his support due to default of payment of mandatory taxes and therefore, it is humbly submitted that his allegations as well as the consumer complaint ought to be dismissed. It is crystal clear that the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint with the malafide intentions to overcome the said lacuna pointed out by the OP1. On merits, it is stated that fresh RC was not issued due to non payments of the taxes which was pending even before the filing of the present case. The copy of mprivahan clearly shows that the complainant did not renewed his insurance policy since 2016, fitness was also expired on 16.03.2017, road tax was not paid since 31.12.2015 and total amount which complainant has to pay is approximately Rs.1,09,375/- to Rs.1,15,000/- as record. These all are the mandatory taxes on the services given by the Govt. And due to default in these payment the vehicle of complainant was also got black listed by the SAS Nagar, RTA, Punjab. Lastly prayed to dismiss the present complaint against the answering OP.
3. In support of their version, the learned counsel for contesting parties have placed on record certain documents, affidavit in the shape of evidence and close their respective evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, carefully.
5. The bench has scanned and minutely gone through the case file and has observed that RC could not be issued by the RTA Authorities because the complainant has not deposited the necessary taxes as levied on the vehicle as per the policy of the State Government.
6.  Keeping in view of above, as the matter already stands decided on 19.2.2021 and the compliance has been made by the RTA Authorities as per the order, this bench is of the view that there is no need to interfere the impugned order dated 19.2.2021. Therefore, the present complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Free certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties. The file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.  

           

                                                                  

                                                         

                                                                  

                        (Ranvir Kaur)                             (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                               (Kuljit Singh)

                          Member                                            Member                                                       President