BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt.  Case No:  335 of 2009

Date of Institution:   10.03.2009

Date of Decision  :   21.09.2010

Gurdev Singh son of Sarup Singh, R/o H.No.2988, Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       Saini Autos, Booth No.68, Sector 43, Chandigarh, through its Prop. Surinder Singh Saini.

2]       Uma Gupta, r/o H.No.1095, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                           PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI              MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                          MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Ajit Singh, Adv. for the complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP No.1.

Sh.T.T.P. Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed Sh.Gurdev Singh against Saini Autos & Anr.

1]             The facts of the case are as under:-

                The complainant had purchased two wheeler – Kinetic Zing Model 2002 from OP No.2 with the help of OP No.1, who was the dealer in the transaction.  All necessary documents were supplied to the complainant by OP No.1 for transfer of the vehicle in his name.  However, when the complainant tried to get the transfer executed in his name, he realized that Form No.29 (Ann.C-2) showed that the vehicle was transferred by OP No.2 in the name of OP No.1 and not the complainant.  The affidavit provided by OP No.2 in respect of the documents was also incomplete.  The complainant was therefore not able to get the vehicle transferred in his name due to the deficiencies in Form Nos.29 & 60 provided to him by the OPs.  The complainant then filed a complaint with the police, but no relief was available to him even there.  The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint claiming refund of the amount of vehicle and commission paid to OP No.1 as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment.  

2]             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs. 

                OP No.1 has submitted that at the time of purchase, the complainant inspected the two wheeler as well as all original papers of the vehicle.  He agreed to purchase the vehicle only after completely satisfying himself.  The delivery of the vehicle was given to him on the same day and a delivery challan (Ann.C-1) was also prepared. OP No.1 have submitted that they have only charged Rs.500/- as commission for the transaction.  It is also submitted that the allegation of the complainant that Forum29 and Form No.60 wee not in order is only because the complainant had an accident with the vehicle soon after the purchase and wanted refund of the amount spent.  OP No.1 has also placed on record Ann.OP-1/2, which is a report of a Forensic Science Medalist to prove that the relevant forms have not been filled by OP No.1.  OP No.1 has alleged that in fact the forms have been filled in by the complainant himself. In view of the above, OP No.1 submits that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant is just unnecessarily harassing them to extract monetary benefit. 

                OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that they had handed over blank signed Forms No.29 & 60 to OP No.1.  The vehicle was sold to OP No.1 and not to the complainant.  The name, particulars and other details were filled in these forms at a later date.

                OP No.2 also points out that the present complaint was fixed before the Lok Adalat and the complainant had received a complete set of documents and affidavit through his counsel a second time to transfer the vehicle in his name. OP No.2 is doubtful whether the complainant has even now got the vehicle transferred in his name.

                In view of the above, OP No.2 has stated that the complaint is not entitled to any relief and the complaint needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence and documents placed on record by the parties. 

4]             At the time of arguments, ld.Counsel for OP No.2 submitted that they had delivered all relevant documents afresh required for transfer of the vehicle in question in the name of the complainant to the ld.Counsel for the complainant before the Forum, in the Lok Adalat held on 21.5.2010.  On the next date of hearing i.e. 11.6.2010, the vehicle had still been not transferred in the name of the complainant, therefore, some more time was granted to him by the Forum and the case was fixed before the next Lok Adalat for compromise.  The OPs had expected the complainant to withdraw his complaint.  However, when no compromise could be arrived at between the parties, the case was referred back to the main stream on 23.7.2010. 

5]             A bare look into the facts of the case shows that the complainant had been handed over the possession of the vehicle as well as all the necessary documents required for transfer at the time of purchase, by the OPs.  When the complainant filed the instant complaint claiming that the documents so supplied were not in order, the OPs complied with his request and supplied him all relevant documents afresh. 

6]             The ld.Counsel for the complainant has admitted on the final date of arguments that the vehicle has now been transferred in the name of the complainant.  Hence, the question left for adjudication is only with regard to compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant. 

7]             In this regard a Forensic Science Medalist report (Ann.OP1/2) has been placed on record by OP No.1 wherein it is submitted that the disputed handwritings on the Form No.29 are not of Sh.Surinder Singh but of a different person.  Sh.Surinder Singh is the Proprietor of OP No.1.  If we take into consideration this report, then the allegation of the complainant seem unclear. 

8]             However, the fact cannot be ruled out that the documents required for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant were incorrect.  When he approached the OPs to rectify the mistake they did not help him.  Now only when he has filed a complaint before this Forum, both the OPs have supplied fresh documents.  The vehicle has now been transferred in the name of the complainant. Taking this fact into consideration, it would not be improper to grant compensation to the complainant for the harassment suffered by him due to above deficient act of OPs. 

9]             In view of the above findings, we allow this complaint.  The OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- in all to the complainant for deficiency in service.  Each of the OPs will pay Rs.2500/- each to the complainant for the harassment suffered by him due to their above said deficient act.

                The aforesaid amounts shall be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay the amount of Rs.5000/- along with interest @12% per annum, from the date of the order till its actual payment to the complainant.

10]            Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.    

Announced

21^st Sept., 2010                                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

“om”