Haryana

Panchkula

CC/280/2016

BALDEV SINGH JAWANDAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

KARNVEER SINGH

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	280 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	13.10.2016
Date of Decision	:	09.03.2017

                                                                                          

Baldev Singh Jawandah, aged 68 years, S/o Late Nazar Sngh, R/o House No.642, Sector-12, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Sub Divisional Office (civil) Panchkula exercising the power of Regional Licensing Authority, motor vehicle Panchkula. (through its dealing official).

2.       M/s Link Utsav, Registration Plates Pvt. Ltd., 1^st Floor, Bus Stand, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana. (through its dealing official).

 

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Ms.Tajinder Kaur, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Defence of OP NO.1 already struck off.

                             Op No.2 already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Bolt Car on 15.12.2015 from Panchkula Autos for his own use. The complainant had applied for the registration of car on time and deposited all required documents for RC and also deposited the requisite fee of Rs.22,843/- being registration of LMV car, MC Tax, Road Tax, Speed Post Charges and Service Charges and also deposited Rs.365/- for High Security Number Plate. The complainant visited the office of Ops for the registration but he has not received any registration number book of the vehicle or any certificate to show that the car has been registered as RLA office of Ops whereas he received the answer that the file of the complainant had been lost by the Ops. The complainant visited many times to SDM office and RLA but to no avail. The complainant also spoke on mobile to Mr.Pankaj of SDM office and Mr.Balwinder Singh of RLA but he had not received any number plate or RC. Thereafter, the complainant had received the RC on 30.04.2016 after a delay of more than 3 months and during the pendency of the complaint. The Op No.2 also under the obligation to install the High Security Number Plate on vehicle within 4 days of receiving the payment and thereafter, the Op No.2 also liable to pay penalty @ Rs.50/- per day for first 7 days and thereafter Rs.75/- per day. Due to non-registration of the vehicle, traffic police stopped the vehicle and the complainant was harassed by them. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice issued to the OP No.1 and on 18.11.2016, Sh.Balbir Singh, clerk authorized representaitve appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned to 15.12.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 15.12.2016, due to none appearance of Op no. 1, the case was adjourned to 04.01.2017 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 04.01.2017, none appeared on behalf of the Op No.1 nor has filed any written statement. As per Section 13 (2) (a) CP Act, the opposite party has to give his version in the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. The OP No.1 failed to file the written statement within stipulated period and defence of the OP No.1 was struck off.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.2, it is deemed to be served. The Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.11.2016.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record and learned counsel for the complainant made a separate statement in which she stated that M/s Link has given/affixed the number plate in the month of November, 2016 after receiving another fees.
6. It is evident that the complainant had deposited requisite fee of Rs.22,843/- being registration of LMV car, MC Tax, Road Tax, Speed Post Charges and Service Charges (Annexure C-1) and also deposited Rs.365/- for High Security Number Plate (Annexure C-2). The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant had visited the office of Ops many times for affixing the high security registration plate on his vehicle and for Registration Certificate but no action was taken by the OPs then he approached this Forum to redress his grievance by way of filing the present complaint on 13.10.2016. Thereafter, during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant had received the RC on 30.04.2016 after a delay of more than 3 months. As per notice on notice board (Annexure C-5) which provides that “M/s Link Utsav is under obligation to install the High Security Number Plates on vehicles within 4 days of receiving payment. Thereafter, they are liable to pay penalty to the customer at the rate of Rs.50/- per day for the first 7 days and thereafter Rs.75/- per day”. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. Moreover, the Op No.1 did not file any written statement and the Op No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. However, during arguments, the counsel for the complainant has stated that the Op No.2 has given/affixed the number plate in the month of November, 2016 after receiving another fee through a statement but she has not mentioned the exact date of affixing the number plate. The complainant deposited the necessary documents and paid the charge for the High Security Number Plate on 02.01.2016 and as per the statement of counsel for the complainant that the Op No.2 affixed the number plate in November, 2016 after receiving another fee but she has not placed on record any receipt in this regard.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant @ Rs.50/- per day for the first 7 days from 03.01.2016 and @ Rs.75/- per day w.e.f. 09.01.2016 till the number plate was affixed.
9. Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the Ops shall be liable to pay the awarded amount alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

09.03.2017                     ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                                MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                          

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT