DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/14/327 of 25.11.2014.
Decided on: 10.03.2015.
Inderjit Singh son of late Gurbax Singh, age 55 years, resident of Seal Road, Kasba Rurki, Bahadurgarh.
Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Malkiat Singh, Prop. M/S. Singh Motors, R/o. Village Rathia, District Patiala.
2. M/S. Lyallpur Motors through its Prop. Rajpura Road, Patiala.
Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. D.R. Arora, President.
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member.
Present: Sh. Sudhir Kumar counsel for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 ex-parte.
Sh. Arun Bansal counsel for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
D.R. ARORA:
1. It is the case of the complainant he had purchased one motor cycle make Aviator for Rs.60,800/- bearing chassis no.ME4JF215AE8108184 and engine no.JF21E-8-0128063 from the O.Ps. The complainant had purchased the said vehicle having got advance from the bank. The complainant was issued the temporary registration number i.e. PB-11-2E(T)-0458 valid for the period 01.02.2014 to 28.02.2014. It is further averred by the complainant that the O.Ps had received the amount for getting the vehicle registered with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala and they assured to get the certificate of registration within 15 days from the date of purchase of the vehicle. The O.Ps had also got the requisite documents signed by the complainant at the time of selling the motor cycle.
2. It is further averred that after the expiry of validity period of temporary certificate of registration i.e. 28.02.2014, the complainant approached the O.Ps and asked for the copy of the certificate of registration but he was put off under one or the other pretext. The complainant also disclosed that in the absence of the certificate of registration he could be challaned by the police and at this the O.Ps provided him the photocopy of the receipt regarding the deposit of the tax and a perusal of the same revealed that the O.Ps had deposited the tax with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa although the complainant is residing at Patiala and he had given his address of Patiala in the documents. The act of the O.Ps in that regard is said to be an unfair trade practice. He never requested the O.Ps nor did he give the consent to get his vehicle registered with Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa. Thus the complainant remained under tension because he could suffer at the hands of the Traffic Police. He was also compelled by the bank to hand over the copy of the certificate of registration for making the entry of hypothecation of the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the damages having suffered the harassment qua the mental agony, in a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant brought this complaint against the O.Ps under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the O.Ps to provide him the copy of certificate of registration to be got issued from the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala; to pay him a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.33,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
3. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against the O.Ps but only O.P no.2 appeared while O.P no.1 despite service failed to come present and was accordingly, proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In the written version filed by O.P no.2, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the motor cycle in question from it, the complainant having got the advance from the bank and that he was issued the temporary certificate of registration valid for 01.02.2014 to 28.02.2014. It is also admitted by the O.P that it had received the fee for the registration of the vehicle but it is denied that any blank papers were got signed by the O.P from the complainant. It is denied that after the expiry of the validity period of temporary certificate of registration on 28.02.2014, the complainant had approached the O.P and asked for the certificate of registration or that he was put off under one or the other pretext or that the O.P failed to provide the certificate of registration. It is the plea taken up by the O.P that the vehicle in question was initially got registered with the District Transport Officer, Mansa due to inadvertence and mistake on the part of the employee of the O.P but later on the vehicle was got registered with the District Transport Officer, Patiala and the registration no.PB-11-BM-8540 was prepared. The original RC was prepared much before the filing of the complaint and intimation was also given to the complainant but he willfully failed to receive the original RC and has brought this frivolous complaint by concealing the material facts to the harassment of the O.P. It is denied that the O.P had committed any fraud or unfair trade practice with the complainant. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the O.P, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex. CA, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C11 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, on behalf of O.P no.2, its counsel tendered in evidence Ex. OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Jasvinder Singh Saini, Proprietor of the O.P along with document Ex. OP1 and closed its evidence.
6. The parties failed to file written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through evidence on record.
7. Ex. C1 is the copy of the challan dated nil issued by O.P no.1 regarding delivery of the vehicle bearing chassis no.ME4JF215AE8108184 model Aviator bearing engine no.JF21E-8-0128063 to have been made to Inderjit Singh son of Gurbax Singh showing the price thereof at Rs.60,800/-. Ex. C3 is the copy of the temporary certificate of registration of the said vehicle valid for the period 01.02.2014 to 28.02.2014.
8. Ex. 6 is the photocopy of the form-receipt of tax dated 25th February, 2014 issued in the name of Inderjit Singh for Rs.2,168/- by Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa, the payment to have been made by Lyallpur Motors at Patiala i.e. O.P no.2 as also the deposit of Rs.160/- towards the registration fees plus hypothecation fees (charges for certificate of registration) and Rs.200/- towards smart card. The complainant has also produced on file the other photocopy dated 28.02.2014 to have been issued by the aforesaid authority at Mansa regarding the deposit of Rs.235/- towards society fees and scanning fees.
9. It was submitted by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant had to suffer the harassment and mental agony because of O.P no.2 having not supplied the certificate of registration even got issued from Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa and therefore he may be awarded a suitable compensation. It was also submitted by Sh. Sudhir Kumar that the complainant is the resident of Seal Road, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil and District Patiala and therefore, he had not to get his vehicle registered with Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa and therefore, because of the negligence on the part of O.P no.2 he had to suffer the harassment and mental agony for persuading it to get his vehicle registered with Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala.
10. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh. Arun Bansal, the learned counsel for O.P no.2 that it is the categorical plea taken up by the O.P that the certificate of registration was got issued from the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa by way of inadvertence on the part of the employee of the O.P and that the same was got prepared from the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala vide no.PB-11-BM-8540 much before the filing of the complaint and the complainant was given intimation regarding the same but he willfully failed to receive the original RC and now he has brought this complaint concealing the facts in order to harass and humiliate the O.P.
11. It was also submitted by Sh. Bansal that the very day when the taxes/fees for the registration of the vehicle are deposited online with the Motor Vehicle Department, the registration number of the vehicle is allotted at that very moment, which as per the form-receipt of tax Ex. C6 dated 28th February, 2014 was deposited by O.P no.2 with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa and when the vehicle was provided registration no.PB-31-M-4801. It was also submitted by Sh. Bansal that the complainant has not rebutted the plea taken up by the O.P., in his sworn affidavit that he was given the intimation by the O.P regarding the registration of his vehicle with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala and that he should collect the same from it and rather the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.
12. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the complainant that it has categorically been stated by the complainant in his sworn affidavit Ex. CA that the complainant after the expiry of the temporary certificate of registration on 28.02.2014 had approached the O.Ps and asked for the copy of the certificate of registration but he was put off under one or the other pretext and failed to provide the certificate of registration.
13. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that no doubt there occurred a mistake on the part of O.P no.2 in getting the vehicle registered with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa but when the matter was brought to the notice of the O.P by the complainant, it got the vehicle registered with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala vide no.PB-11-BM-8540 on 27.08.2014 as would appear from Ex. OP1, photocopy of certificate of registration issued by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala. It cannot be believed that the complainant got the copies of the form-receipt of tax Ex. C6 but he was not provided the copy of the certificate of registration by the O.P. rather on the aforesaid receipt of tax Ex. C6 the registration number of the vehicle has been recorded as PB-31-M-4801, going to show that the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa issued the certificate of registration on the same day i.e. on 28th February, 2014 when the tax/fees was deposited. It was for the complainant to have rebutted the plea of the O.P that he was not given the intimation to collect the R.C. got issued by O.P no.2 from Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala but he failed to do so in his sworn affidavit Ex. CA, in the absence of which we are not going to believe the complainant that he was not provided the certificate of registration either by Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa or by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala.
14. It was submitted by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the complainant that now the complainant is holder of two certificates of registration regarding one vehicle, i.e. one issued by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa and the other issued by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala, which will create complications for the complainant.
15. In this regard, it was submitted by Sh. Arun Bansal, the learned counsel for the O.P that the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala registered the vehicle of the complainant only after getting the registration of the vehicle made by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa cancelled and now the vehicle stands registered only with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala because the work regarding the registration of the vehicle is made online and one vehicle bearing the chassis number and engine number cannot be registered at one and the same time with two Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authorities in the same state.
16. It was also submitted by Sh. Bansal that the complainant cannot be said to have suffered any loss or injury because he was never challaned by any Traffic Police nor could he be challaned because he held the certificate of registration issued by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa and the same remained valid till the certificate of registration bearing no.PB-11-BM-8540 (copy Ex. OP1) was issued by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala.
17. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that no doubt the mistake in getting the vehicle of the complainant registered with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa on the part of O.P no.2 was inadvertent and the same had not caused any injury or loss to the complainant because during the subsistence of the certificate of registration issued by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Mansa, he could not be challaned but he certainly suffered harassment and the mental agony because to get the vehicle registered with the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala he had to struggle with the O.P and which certainly caused harassment and mental agony. It appears that the complainant failed to collect the certificate of registration issued by the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala the O.P having given the intimation in this regard, a fact not rebutted by the complainant in his sworn affidavit Ex. CA. In any case, in view of the facts and circumstances, we accept the complaint and direct the O.P to provide the certificate of registration got issued from the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala to the complainant within 7 days on receipt of the certified copy of the order and also to provide him within a period of one month, a sum of Rs.15,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and mental agony experienced by him because of the O.P having not got the certificate of registration issued at the first instance from the Motor Vehicle (Registering) Authority, Patiala and the said amount is also inclusive of the costs of the complaint.
Pronounced.
Dated: 10.03.2015.
Neelam Gupta D.R. Arora
Member President
