DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 187/2015
Date of Institution : 15.07.2015
Date of Decision : 12.01.2016
Ajaib Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh resident of Nanaksar Nagar, Street No. 3, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Sanjeev Kumar s/o Baldev Kumar, resident of Sekha Road, Street No. 4, Barnala.
2. Harpal Singh s/o Binder Singh resident of Street No. 4, Barnala, District Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. RS Sekhu counsel for the complainant
Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Ajaib Singh son of Gurcharan Singh (in short as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (in short as Act) against Sanjeev Kumar opposite party No. 1 and Harpal Singh opposite party No. 2 (in short as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR-26-L-6247 engine No. 1020333 chassis No. 1464301 Model 2000 from opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 53,000/- and paid Rs. 40,000/- on 17.1.2014 at the time of delivery of the said car. It was agreed that the amount of Rs. 13,000/- will be paid at the time of delivery of documents. The complainant further averred that he approached the opposite parties to deliver the necessary documents but the opposite parties had lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. After repeated requests and demands, the opposite parties in connivance with each other gave an affidavit to sell purporting to be executed by opposite party No. 1 through Harpal Singh opposite party No. 2 alongwith other documents after a period of eight months from the date of purchase and the opposite parties received the balance amount of Rs. 13,000/-. After the period of one month from the receipt of the documents, the complainant approached the office of District Transport Office, Barnala for transfer of the said car in his name but the complainant was shocked when he was told that as per record the registered owner of the car in question is Karamjit Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh and the said car could not be transferred in the name of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite parties either to get transferred the said car in his name or to refund the amount of Rs. 53,000/- alongwith interest but the opposite parties never acceded to the request of the complainant and therefore the complainant served a legal notice but invain. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To transfer the said car or to refund the amount of Rs. 53,000/-
2) To pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties jointly filed a written version taking legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, no cause of action, no locus standi, no deficiency in service, that complainant is not a consumer, this complaint has no jurisdiction, estoppal, this complaint cannot be disposed of in a summary manner and the complaint could file a civil suit seeking the alleged relief.
4. On merits it is submitted that the complainant purchased said Maruti Car but at the time of purchasing the same, the opposite parties told the complainant that the car was purchased by opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 from true owner Karamjit Kaur wife of Jaswant Singh vide affidavit dated 7.1.2014 and copy of the said affidavit was also given to the complainant. Remaining documents were also received by the complainant on 26.9.2014. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of registration certificate Ex.C-2, copy of affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar regarding sale Ex.C-3, copy of form No. 29 and form No. 30 Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, copy of legal notice Ex.C-6, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-7, acknowledgment Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Harpal Singh Ex.OP-2, copy of affidavit of Karamjit Kaur Ex.OP-3, copy of affidavit of Ajaib Singh Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
8. As per the complaint the relief sought by the complainant is to get transfer the car in question in the name of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the vehicle in question from the opposite party No. 1 and in his support he has placed on record photocopy of the affidavit of opposite party No. 1 Ex.C-3 dated 26.9.2014. It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite party No. 1 purchased the said vehicle from Karamjit Kaur who was the registered owner. It is admitted fact that the competent authority to transfer the vehicle from the seller to purchaser is the District Transport Office, Barnala. However, the complainant has not made the said competent authority as a party.
9. It is also the case of the complainant that the vehicle in question is of model 2000 which is stated to be of 15 years old and therefore, it is only the competent authority i.e. District Transport Office Barnala who can decide whether the 15 years old vehicle can be transferred in the name of the purchaser or not.
10. Perusal of the photocopy of the RC Ex.C-2 shows that the original owner of the vehicle in question was mentioned as Deepak Kumar of Gurgaon and thereafter there was endorsement which shows that the vehicle was transferred in the name of Jaspal Kumar Verma on 8.2.2008 and thereafter the endorsement has been shown in favour of Karamjit Kaur on 18.12.2008. The certificate of registration does not show any transfer of the vehicle from Karamjit Kaur to Sanjeev Kumar opposite party No. 1. Thus the opposite party No. 1 is not the registered owner and therefore the oral evidence that the vehicle was purchased by opposite party No. 1 from Karamjit Kaur cannot take place of the registered document showing Karamjit Kaur still is the owner of the vehicle in question. Thus the opposite party No. 1 since is not the registered owner so he is not competent to sell the same to the complainant.
11. As discussed above the complainant has not made the District Transport Office, Barnala as a necessary party who is the only competent authority to transfer the vehicle in question and without impleading the District Transport Office, Barnala in this case it is held that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party. This view also finds support from II (2015) CPJ-263 (NC) UCO Bank Versus Santosh Kumar Rai.
12. As the result of above discussion there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed. However the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or any other competent authority as per law, if he desires so. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
12th Day of January 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
