Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OP (now appellant) to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant (now respondent) alongwith Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation, and get the car transferred in favour of the complainant within 30 days from 29.12.2009, the date of order. It was also directed that if the vehicle was transferred, and the payment of compensation was made to the complainant within the aforesaid period, then the OP would be entitled to the amount of Rs.10,000/-, which the complainant was to pay to it, however, if the OP fails to get the vehicle transferred in favour of the complainant, within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the OP would not be entitled to get the said amount of Rs.10,000/-, and it would be liable to pay the aforesaid amounts alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 29.07.09, till the order was complied with. 2. The complainant purchased a second hand car, from the OP, as per settled amount of Rs.2,13,000/-, besides commission and service tax etc., which was to be paid by 30.01.09. The complainant paid Rs.2,03,000/- as full and final payment in respect of price of the said car alongwith Rs. 4260/- as commission, plus Rs.527/- as 12.36% service tax. It was also agreed that the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- would be paid by the complainant on handing over the documents of the car. It was further stated that the OP promised to hand over the documents, to the complainant, within one week. Despite several requests, made by the complainant for handing over the documents of the car, the same were not handed over to him. Even, no response was sent to the letters, written by the complainant, to the OP. On 20.7.2009, a notice was sent by the complainant to the OP, which was received by it, but no response was sent to the same, nor the documents were supplied. It was further stated that on account of non-availability of the said documents, the complainant was unable to use the car. It was further stated that, as such, the aforesaid acts of the OP, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. In the written reply, filed by the OP, it was stated that the complainant took one month to hand over the registration of the said car to it, for obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’. Accordingly, the NOC was applied in the month of March, 2009. It was further stated that the delay was attributable to the complainant only. It was further stated that on 26.06.09, the OP received ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Registration Authority and intimation was sent to the complainant. Instead of paying the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-, a legal notice was sent to the OP, by the complainant, which was replied to by it, stating therein, that the documents were ready and may be collected after making payment of the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. It was further stated that all the papers were ready and even the OP offered to handover the same to the complainant, but it was the latter, who delayed the matter, on one pretext or the other, and lingered on, to make the balance payment of Rs.10,000/-. It was further stated that there was neither deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/OP. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, respondent (complainant) in person, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant/OP, had no role, whatsoever, with regard to the handing over of documents. He further submitted that the appellant was only a Commission agent, who got the deal struck, with regard to the purchase of car, by the complainant, from some body else and demanded commission of Rs.10,000/-, which amount was not even paid by him(complainant). It was further submitted that the complainant did not array the seller of the car, as a party. It was further submitted that the appellant had not given any assurance or guarantee for providing any document, with regard to the car, in question. He further submitted that since the appellant/OP had no concern, whatsoever, to get the car transferred, in the name of the complainant, nor was he responsible to supply the necessary documents, the District Forum, gravely erred in passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant, submitted that the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the appellant were, totally and completely against the averments, contained in the written statement. He further submitted that, in the written statement, the stand taken up by the OP was that it was the complainant, who delayed the matter, in supplying the documents and, therefore, the NOC, could not be supplied to him in time. He further submitted that the appellant/OP, thus, could not take a stand, contrary to the one, already taken by him, in the written statement. He further submitted that the District Forum was right in holding that the OP was clearly deficient, in rendering service. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, deserves to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the appellant, and the respondent, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It is evident from C-1, the earnest money receipt, that the OP agreed to sell the second hand car to the complainant for Rs.2,13,000/- plus service tax etc. It is further evident from this document that Rs.10,000/- were obtained, as earnest money, and the remaining amount of Rs.2,03,000/- was to be paid on 30.1.2009. It is evident from C2, a purchase copy on the letter head pad of the OP, that the car, in question, was sold to the complainant, for an amount of Rs.2,13,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/- remained as balance, which was to be paid to it, on getting transferred the vehicle/registration, in his(complainant)favour. The OP did not do anything, despite the fact, that the complainant approached him a number of times, and also sent him letters and made him calls. R-1 is the form of application for NO Objection Certificate, which shows that it was moved on 19.6.2009. It means that the OP for a period of about five months from the sale of car, did not make any effort, to apply to the competent authority, for the issuance of NOC. The NOC, on the basis of application dated 19.6.2009 R1, was issued by the Registering Authority, Pathankot, on the same date, though it was delivered on 25.6.2009. The vehicle was hypothecated with the Allahabad Bank, as is clear from the registration certificate R-2. The endorsement thereon reveals that the hypothecation was cancelled on 19.6.2009, and the No Objection Certificate in respect of the same, was issued on 25.6.2009. Under these circumstances, the OP was required to procure two documents, with a view to enable the transfer of the vehicle, in favour of the complainant, but it did not make any effort, as stated above, for a period of about five months. This clearly shows that the OP was deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 11. The stand taken up by the appellant, in the written reply, to the effect, that the delay in filing the application was caused by the complainant, as he did not handover the documents to it in time, appears to be false. When the vehicle was sold in favour of the complainant, by or through the OP, all the documents were with it. Whatever documents it needed for obtaining the NOC, could have been retained by it, at the time of sale of the car, so that the process for transferring the vehicle, in favour of the complainant, could be initiated. There is no document, on the record, showing that any letter was written by the OP, to the complainant, requesting him to handover the documents. Even in the written reply, filed by the OP, and in the affidavit, submitted by him, in support thereof by way of evidence, no date was mentioned, on which it received the documents. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in holding that the stand of the complainant, to the effect, that the documents were already with the OP, but it was harassing him, by asking him to supply the documents for obtaining the NOC, which was even not applied for about 5 months, was correct. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the delay in issuing the No Objection Certificate was not on account of the fault of the complainant, but on account of the palpable negligence of the OP, in not applying for the same, in time, though the documents were with it. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 12. At the time of arguments, the submissions were made by the Counsel for the appellant, against the case set up by him, in the written statement. The submissions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, against the version, set up, in the written reply, therefore, could not be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the submission, of the Counsel for the appellant, to the effect, that the appellant had no connection, whatsoever, with regard to the sale of the vehicle, in question, or obtaining NOC or handing over other documents to the complainant, being contrary to the stand taken up by it, in the written statement, cannot be taken into consideration. In these circumstances, it is held that it was the OP, who was wholly solely responsible for getting the deal struck, with regard to the sale of car, in favour of the complainant, retaining the documents of the vehicle with it, not applying for the NOC, for transfer of the same (vehicle)in favour of the complainant, for a period of about five months, from the date of sale. Thus, the OP could not absolve itself, of its responsibility. The submissions of the Counsel for the appellant, thus, being contrary to the written reply, must fail and the same are rejected. 13. The order of the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission . 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
