PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 07.12.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 89 of 2003 filed by the present petitioner, vide which the State Commission had dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi dated 30.11.2001 in case No. TC/2414/98.  The complaint had been filed before the District Forum on 06.03.1998 by Sugan Chand Jain, resident of C-1/B, Green Park Extension, New Delhi.  The present respondent Sudeep Kumar Jain is the son and legal heir of late Sugan Chand Jain.

2.     The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. is a finance company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and deals in financing of vehicles under various schemes.  It has been stated in the petition that on 24.12.1997, the petitioner M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. conducted an auction of various vehicles including one car Maruti 800 bearing registration No. TN 01 J0306, which was sold to the father of the respondent Sugan Chand Jain for Rs. 1,25,000/- on ‘As is where is basis’ against cash receipt No. DE 996605 issued in favour of the respondent.  The delivery of vehicle was also given to the purchaser and a photocopy of the registration certificate was handed over to him, while the original registration certificate was sent to the Central Registration Authority, Madras (now Chennai), along with application for deletion of endorsement of ‘hire-purchase’ in respect of the original hirer M/s. Kwvai Annapoorna Foods & Beverages Ltd.  The above facts have been stated in the complaint dated 06.03.1998 filed by the complainant also, except saying that the car was taken in auction.  The petitioner says that along with copy of registration certificate, form No. 29 and form No. 30 and various other documents were also handed over to the respondent so that the respondent was able to get the said vehicle transferred in his name.  The complainant has stated however, that incomplete papers were handed over to him for the said car; form no. 28 was also required to be given duly attested from the authority from where the car belonged but the said form was not given to them by M/s. Tata Finance Ltd.  In addition, only a single copy of form No. 30 was given, whereas duplicate copies are required.  The case of the complainant is that the till today, it has not been possible to get the car transferred in their name due to non-receipt of papers form the petitioner and hence, they are not able to use and run this vehicle.  The complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for mental harassment, Rs. 2,000/- for advocate fees and Rs. 1,000/- as transit charges and also requested for payment of interest @ 24% on the sale value of the car i.e. Rs. 1,25,000/-.  The District Forum vide their order passed on 30.11.2002, directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as costs and damages for giving the vehicle to the complainant without getting the same transferred in his name and also stated that the petitioner/opposite party should pay full price to the complainant, in case they wanted to take the vehicle back from the complainant.  An appeal against this order was filed before the State Commission and the State Commission vide their order dated 07.12.2007 dismissed the appeal saying that the petitioner had delayed the transfer of the vehicle by not providing the requisite assistance and material for transfer and not furnishing the requisite documents.

3.     Heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

4.     It has been argued by the learned counsel for the parties that after the sale of the car by auction to the complainant, they had handed over all necessary papers to the complainant, including copy of the original registration certificate and form no. 29 and form no. 30.  It was not their duty to provide form no. 28 to the purchaser.  The complainant was supposed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for affecting the transfer, but they did not pay the same.  The petitioner got the hypothecation deleted from the competent authority, but further work for the transfer of the vehicle was to be done by the complainant/respondent.

5.     The respondent, appearing in person, argued that although the delivery of the vehicle had been given to his father by the petitioner, after receiving payment of Rs. 1,25,000/-, only incomplete papers were handed over to them, so they could not get the registration of the vehicle transferred to their name.  They sent many letters to the petitioner in this regard, but there was  no response from them.  The respondent denied that the petitioner had ever asked for payment of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from them.  Even if this demand was made, it was not clear as to what for that sum of Rs. 6,000/- was required.  The respondent has drawn our attention to a copy of the letter sent by the Registering Authority (Central) Madras to his father on 18.01.2000 in which it has been stated as follows:

“Shri Sugan Chand Jain is informed that the registered owner of the car TN 01 J0306  should file, in triplicate, copies of form No. 28 along with original registration certificate of TN 01 J0306, original insurance certificate and original police report along with up to date tax payment.”

6.     The respondent stated that they had purchased the car from the petitioner and they had no knowledge about the original owner, neither they were supposed to deal with him.  It was the duty of the petitioner to get the papers arranged from the concerned authority and hand over the same to them, so that the registration could be got done by them.  The respondent further stated that as per the current situation, the car had become very old and even if, they are able to get the necessary papers from the petitioner, they shall not be able to have the registration transferred in their name.  In accordance with some judgements passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the concerned transport authority shall not accept the papers at this belated stage as the car does not meet EURO II specifications.

7.     We have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  It is a very peculiar case that the car was sold by M/s. Tata Finance Ltd., which is a reputed finance company, as far back as ‘end of the year 1997’, but even after 15 years or so, it has not been possible to get the registration certificate transferred in the name of the purchaser.  It is very clear from the facts of the case that the original owner of the car belonged to Tamil Nadu State but the hypothecation was in the favour of M/s. Tata Finance Ltd.  May be, on the owner’s failure to repay the loan amount etc., the car came into the possession of the petitioner and they sold it to the father of the present respondent.  Later on, they got the hypothecation also cancelled from the competent authority.  It is very clear that it was the duty of the petitioner to ensure that all necessary documentation was arranged by them, so that the registration of the car could be transferred in the name of the new purchaser.  It is not the job of the purchaser to correspond directly with the registering authority at Madras and request for the requisite papers.  Even then, they did make a request and the registering authority rightly replied as per their letter dated 18.01.2000 that the owner of the car registered with them should make application on the proper proforma and submit the same along with requisite documents.  It was the job of the petitioner to have contacted the original owner and ensured that the needful is done.  There is therefore, a definite deficiency on the part of the petitioner and it has been rightly observed by the District Forum and the State Commission that they are liable to compensate the complainant for the same.

8.     Now coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  In his complaint dated 06.03.1998, the complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for mental harassment, Rs. 2,000/- for advocate fees and Rs. 1,000/- as transit charges.  He also asked for interest of 24% on the sale price of Rs. 1,25,000/-.  The complaint has been made, after two months of the sale of the vehicle.  The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant and also stated that if the petitioner/opposite wants to get back the vehicle, then they should pay full price to the complainant and take back the vehicle.

9.     At the present juncture, it is clear that the vehicle has been in the possession of the complainant for a long time and although, he has not been able to get the registration transferred in his name, he must be using the vehicle, somehow, as he admitted during the course of hearing that till last year, he was getting the insurance policy renewed for the vehicle.  Moreover, in his complaint also, the complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for mental harassment, Rs. 2,000/- for advocate fee and Rs. 1,000/- for transit charges.  It was also demanded that interest @ 24% should be paid on the sale value of the car i.e. 1,25,000/-.  Since the vehicle has been in the possession of the complainant, there is no justification for granting any interest on the same price.  The award given by the District Forum, vide which Rs. 75,000/- have been allowed to be given to the complainant is also without any rational basis, because the demand made by the complainant is something else, as stated above.  The complainant had demanded Rs. 20,000/- for mental harassment and given the facts and circumstances of the case, it shall be in the fitness of thing that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded for mental harassment along with interest of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.  The amount of Rs. 2,000/- for advocate fees and Rs. 1,000/- for transit charges is also allowed to the complainant as a one-time payment.

10.   With these observations, the revision petition is partly allowed and orders of State Commission and District Forum are modified and compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by District Forum is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- to be payable along with 9% per annum interest from date of filing of complaint till realization.