Delhi

North East

CC/64/2021

Sandeep Malkania - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rosmerta Safety System Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.64/21

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sandeep Malkania S/o Late Shri D.C. Malkania, A Block, House No 59, Street Number 02, Ganga Vihar Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.         3.         4.         5.           6.	Rosmerta Safety System Pvt. Ltd., F-119, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase II Mayapuri, New Delhi Delhi 110064   Pradeep Kumar Goyal (Director), F-119, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase II Mayapuri, New Delhi Delhi 110064   Sahendra Pal Singh (Director), F-119, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase II Mayapuri, New Delhi Delhi 110064   Mukesh Malhotra (Addl. Director), F-119, Mayapuri Industrial Area Phase II Mayapuri, New Delhi Delhi 110064   Through Secretory, Govt. of Delhi NCT, Ministry of Transport, Transport Department, 5/9 Under Hill Road, Delhi 110054 Through Secretary, Union of India Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Transport Bhawan 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

01.04.2021 13.03.2023 12.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is the brother of one Neelam Malkania, the owner of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Swift Dzire having registration no. DL9CAG3858. On 04.12.2018, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways notified that the high security registration plate (HSRP) including the third registration mark, wherever required, shall be supplied by the vehicle manufacturers along with the vehicles manufactured on or after the 1^st day of April, 2019 to their dealers and dealers shall place a mark of registration on such plates and affix them on the vehicles. Complainant further stated that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways further notified on 6^th December 2018 under Clause 5 (ii) that the manufacturers or suppliers of high security registration plates, if so authorized by the state concerned, may also supply the high security registration plate including the third registration mark on old vehicles after placing the registration mark. Complainant stated that Complainant placed an online order for purchasing and installation of High Security Registered Plate (HSRP) through www.bbokmyhsrp.com which is owned and operated by Opposite Party 1 i.e. Rosmerta Safety Systems Pvt. Ltd.  Complainant stated that the Complainant made an online payment of Rs.992/- through online platform of Opposite Party No. 1. The said payment was made on 20.12.2020 and was promised by Opposite Party No. 1 to deliver the same on 04.02.2021 which has not been delivered yet to the Complainant. Complainant stated that the delivery guy of Opposite Party No. 1 gave a phone call to the Complainant on 04.02.2021 without prior intimation of his visit and asked the Complainant to arrange somebody else’s or neighbour’s vehicle in case the Complainant is not available at home so that he could affix the HSRP plate to somebody else’s vehicle to get the KYC done as an alternate method of delivery of HSRP plate at the doorstep of the Complainant. Complainant stated that he denied following the alternate method of delivery against the vehicle. Complainant further stated that the Opposite Party No. 6 wrote to all the Commissioners of Transport of all the states and Union Territories on 16^th September 2020 stating “for providing the free flow of traffic while capturing vehicle details and toll collection as well, it is essential that the vehicles are fitted with high Security Registration Plates” citing amendment rules made under the order dated 04..12.2018. 06.12.2018 and 25.02.2019. It is alleged that the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 5 failed to comply the above rules by not supplying the promised delivery of HSRP to the Complainant. Complainant also sent a legal notice to Opposite Parties but nobody paid any heed. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 to pay   Rs. 2,000/- per day from the date of delivery promised by Opposite Party No. 1 for the loss and mental agony and dereliction of duty, Rs. 2,500 per day spend from the date of delivery promised, Rs. 60,000/- on account of litigation expenses and Rs. 15000/- per month for driver salary which was paid without availing his services.
2. While admitting the complaint vide order dated 16.07.2021, notices were issued only to Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.5 and Opposite Party No.6 and notices were served accordingly to them as Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 respectively.

 

 

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 4 (Opposite Party No.1 hereinafter)

3. Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 4 (Opposite Party No.1 hereinafter) contested the case and filed their common written statement. While taking preliminary objection that the claim of the Complainant is highly exaggerated, it is contended that law is settled on the point that under consumer Act, it is the deficiency of service which is to be compensated and not the consequential loss as is claimed in the present complaint. It is also contended that the Complainant has no locus to file the present complaint as he is the brother of the owner of the subject vehicle and the booking of HRSP was not made by the Complainant. On merits, it is contended that their employee approached the vehicle owner on the date of affixation as per the appointment but the vehicle was not available and affixation was refused by the vehicle owner. It is further contended that vehicle owner inspite of being unavailable on the date of appointment did not reschedule the appointment as per the requirement provided on the booking site. It is prayed in the light of above facts, that the Opposite Party No.1 not deficient in services, hence, the complaint be dismissed against them.
4. It is to be noted that Opposite Party No. 5 and 6 (Now 2 &3 respectively) were served with the notice of complaint. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, while Authorised representative appeared on behalf of Opposite Party 2 but failed to file reply on their behalf.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No. 4 (Now Opposite Party No.1)

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 4, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 4 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his case filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 4

7. To support its case Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 4 has filed common  affidavit of Shri. Subhash Chandra Malhotra, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 to Opposite Party No. 4 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant.
9. It is an admitted case of the parties that the online booking was done by the vehicle owner Neelam Malkania (Complainant’s sister) for installation of High Security Registered plate and sticker after making required payment to the Opposite Party No.1 and the appointment date was fixed as 04.02.2021. It is the case of the Complainant that said HSRP has not been delivered yet to the Complainant. It has been alleged by the Complainant that the delivery guy of Opposite Party No.1 gave a phone call to the Complainant on 04.02.2021 without prior intimation of his visit and asked the Complainant to arrange somebody else’s or neighbour’s vehicle in case the Complainant is not available at home so that he could affix the HSRP plate to somebody else’s vehicle to get the KYC done as an alternate method of delivery of HSRP plate at the doorstep of the Complainant. While the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is that their employee approached the vehicle owner on the date of affixation as per the appointment but the vehicle was not available and affixation was refused by the vehicle owner. It is also denied by Opposite Party No.1 that an alternate method of delivery was suggested by them. Opposite Party No.1 also raised preliminary objection that the Complainant has no locus to file the present complaint as he is not the owner of vehicle. It is further contended that vehicle owner inspite of being unavailable on the date of appointment did not reschedule the appointment as per the requirement provided on the booking site.
10.  Admittedly, Opposite Party No.1 contacted the Complainant on the date of appointment and the vehicle was not available at that time.  After that day, the Opposite Party No.1 did not make any attempt to complete the job. The Complainant on oath says that he kept on raising the grievance but it was not resolved. The Opposite Party No.1 has not filed any cogent evidence to show that tried to resolve the matter which shows their negligent and reckless behaviour. The contention of Opposite Party No.1 cannot be accepted that the Complainant has no locus as the user of the product or services falls within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer protection Act, 2019. The contention that the Complainant was supposed to reschedule the appointment is also baseless as he was raising the issue time and again was not heard.
11. On further perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the due to non-availability of the subject vehicle, the installation of the HSRP could not be installed on scheduled date i.e. 04.02.2021. It is also clear from the record that on 17.02.2021, the Complainant served a legal notice upon the Opposite Party No.1 through email raising his grievance in this regard and also on 16.03.2021 registered his complaint with the Opposite Party No.1 through online portal but the Opposite Party No.1 has been unable to produce any cogent evidence to show their response to these complaints and notice. In their pleadings also, Opposite Party No.1 has failed to give any satisfactory reply as to why the HRSP was not fitted till date. The Opposite Party No.1 has also failed to produce any cogent evidence to show that they tried to contact the Complainant/vehicle owner after 04.02.2021 and resolve the issue.
12.  Since, the Consumer protection Act is a beneficial legislation and hyper technicalities cannot be allowed to defeat the interest of the consumer.
13. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered that the Opposite Party No.1 has been deficient in providing services to the Complainant.
14. Thus, the present complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to affix/install the HSRP along with the sticker on the subject vehicle upon completion of the formalities and in accordance with law, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.45,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost. Opposite Party is liable to pay the same within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of order. In case of delay in the payment beyond 4 weeks Opposite Party will be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. for the delayed period.
15. Order announced on 12.09.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)