BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.96 of 2017

      Date of Instt. 05.04.2017

      Date of Decision: 16.03.2020

Satbir Singh Parmar son of Pritam Singh Parmar resident of House No.5B, Rama Mandi, Professor Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, PUDA Complex, Jalandhar through its Attorney Ranbir Singh.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. Karan Kalia, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is doing the business of transport under the name and style of M/s Parmar Transport for the last more than 30 years. The vehicle Tata 1109/Truck bearing No.UP12-T-4054 was purchased by the complainant from the OP at Ludhiana in auction on 16.10.2012 and thereafter, the complainant had deposited all the payment with the subsidiary company of the OP namely Shree Ram Auto Mall including margin money and got the loan of Rs.5,25,000/- advanced from the OP. That thereafter, the OP had not delivered the documents of the concerned vehicle i.e. Registration Certificate, NOC from Regional Transport Authority Muzafar Nagar UP, Transfer deed paper etc. The complainant thereafter made number of request to provide all the above said documents so that they could able to ply the vehicle on the road. But the OP did not supply the same to the complainant. It is not possible for the complainant to use the said vehicle without all the necessary documents. In this manner the complainant is not in position to use the said vehicle for the last more than three years. Moreover, the complainant had paid installments of the loan amount to the OP. Even the complainant made the request through emails on 17.01.2014 and 22.09.2014 to the OP to provide all the documents, but the OP did not pay any attention to the genuine request of the complainant. The OP failed to provide all the documents of the vehicle mentioned above to the complainant, as the said vehicle stands in the name of original owner i.e. Brahm Pal and the same was never hypothecated in the name of present complainant with the concerned RTO Muzafar Nagar, UP.

2.                That thereafter the OP has filed petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and an interim measure of protection in respect of the custody of the said vehicle and in the said petition complainant appeared before the Court of Sh. Ashok Kapoor, ADJ, Jalandhar and the said complaint was dismissed as withdrawn by the OP, vide order dated 14.12.2016. Without documents of the vehicle, the complainant was unable to ply the said vehicle and complainant make request to the OP number of times to deliver and handover the entire documents of the vehicle necessary to ply the vehicle, but the OP did not pay heed to the request of the complainant. Since the value of the vehicle has diminished for the last five years, the question of interest and overdue interest over the loan amount does not arise at all. Due to the above said acts of the OP, the complainant had to face financial loss, harassment, pain and mental agony and deficiency of service on the part of the OP and even there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to supply the original documents of the concerned vehicle i.e. Registration Certificate, NOC from Regional Transport Authority Muzafar Nagar UP, Transfer deed paper etc. and further, OP be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, financial loss and harassment and further, OP be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and further averred that the complainant is running a transport company and this vehicle was being used by the complainant in that context so the complainant is using the vehicle for the commercial activity and thus, this Forum having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and further submitted that the complaint of the complainant is time barred. As per the complaint, the dispute started in the year 2012, wherein the instant complaint filed in the year 2017. It is further averred that the complainant got the financial assistance against this vehicle from the OP and committed the default. Nobody can take advantage of his own wrong. The OP is asking the complainant to collect the registration certificate and other documents. It is the complainant, who is not turning up and even the complainant is not a consumer. On merits, it is admitted that the vehicle in question was given to the complainant in open auction in the year 2012 and further submitted that the documents are with the OP and it is the complainant, who has failed to discharge the liability qua his loan and further failed to collect the documents of the previous loan. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.            

4.                Replication not filed.

5.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

6.                Similarly, Authorized Attorney of the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very carefully.

8.                Before imparting with the main issue, we like to discuss the legal issue raised by the OP. Firstly, the OP alleged that the complainant is not a consumer, but in order to facilitate this argument, the counsel for the OP miserably failed to give any satisfactory reply how the complainant is not a consumer when the complainant got services of the OP qua financial assistance on interest basis.

9.                The next question raised by the OP that the instant complaint of the complainant is time barred because the dispute started in the year 2012, but this submission of the learned counsel for the OP having no substances in the eyes of law because the documents of the vehicle has yet not been delivered to the complainant and it is recurring cause accrued to the complainant and therefore, the complainant is within limitation.

10.               Further, we have also considered the plea taken by the OP that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for commercial activities, but we find that the complainant has not used the said vehicle for commercial activities because the documents of the vehicle was never delivered to the complainant and without document, it is not possible to ply the vehicle on a road. So, we do not find any solid substances in the argument of the learned counsel for the OP.

11.              In nutshell, the factum in regard to purchase of the vehicle by way of auction from the OP, is not in dispute. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was purchased in auction on 16.10.2012 after taking a financial assistance from the OP to the extent of Rs.5,25,000/-. It is also admitted that the OP filed a petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act for getting delivery of the vehicle, but the said petition under Arbitration Act was withdrawn by the OP, vide order dated 14.12.2016. So, one thing is admitted from the facts as well as from the documents that the complainant is not paying some installments and due to that reason, the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed by the OP for getting possession of the vehicle, being reason the complainant is defaulter in installments.

12.              On the other hand, the case of the complainant that he has not received the relevant documents and in the absence of required documents i.e. Registration Certificate and NOC from Regional Transport Office, he could not ply the vehicle in question and since the day of purchase i.e. 2012, he is not in position to ply the vehicle due to the fault and negligence on the part of the OP, who is not providing the documents in question. The OP has not denied that the document in question is in possession of the OP, rather the OP in its reply in Para No.4 of the preliminary objections categorically submitted that “the OP is asking the complainant to collect the registration certificate and other documents, it is the complainant who is not turning up”. Further, the OP again admitted in Para No.3 on merits as under:-

        “The documents are with the OP and it is the complainant who has failed to discharge the liability qua his loan and further failed to collect the documents of previous loan.”

                   It is clearly established from the reply of the OP that the documents in question has not been delivered to the complainant since the day of the purchase i.e. 2012 and in the absence of the documents, it is not possible to legally ply the vehicle, if so, then certainly a huge financially loss as well as mental agony and harassment has been suffered by the complainant from the hands of the OP, for which the complainant is entitled for compensation as well as relief claimed qua delivery of the documents.

13.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to deliver the documents i.e. Registration Certificate, NOC from Regional Transport Authority Muzafar Nagar, UP and Transfer deed to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OP will further pay Rs.200/- per day till the day when documents delivered. OP is further directed to pay compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and further OP is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

14.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Karnail Singh

16.03.2020                              Member                          President