Haryana

StateCommission

A/1168/2017

PREETY DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SIDHI VINAYAK VEHICLE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SUSHEEL GAUTAM

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.1168 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution: 03.10.2017

                                                          Date of final hearing: 22.04.2024

                                                     Date of pronouncement: 30.04.2024

 

 

Preety Devi D/oSh.Krishan and now wife of Sh.Yogesh Kaushik, R/o Arya Enclave, House No.24, Panipat.                             ….. Appellant

•  

1. Sidhi Vinayak Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., Workshop and Bodyshop202, MIE Industrial Area, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar through its Proprietor.

2. Jagmohan Motors Ltd., (Maruti Authorized dealer) Delhi road, Bahalgarh, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

3. L & T General Insurance Co. D, 6-7 Floor, City 2, Plot No.177, CST Road, Kalina, Shanta Kruz, East Mumbai-400098 through its Manager.……Respondent

CORAM:             Mr.Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member

                             Mrs. Manjula Sharma, Member

 

Argued by:-       Mr.Sushil Gautam Advocate for the appellant.

                             None for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

Mr.S.C.Thatai, counsel for Mr. Nitin Thatai, counsel for respondent No.3.

 

                                                ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

Delay of 3  days in filing of this appeal stand condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

2.      Challenge in this Appeal No.1168 of 2017 of appellant/complainant has been invited to the legality of order dated 30.08.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat(In short “District Consumer Commission”) in Complaint No.455 of 2016, vide which complainant’s complaint has been partly allowed.

3.      Factual matrix: Complainant-Preety Devi had purchased Maruti Calerio  VXI car from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 on 10.02.2016 and got it insured with OP.No.3.  On 18.02.2016, said car met with an accident and badly damaged.  Complainant lodged report vide NCR No.17 dated 27.02.2016.  O.P.No.1 advised her to get the car repaired from O.P. No.2 and on 05.03.2016; complainant parked the car in work shop of OP No.2 for repairs.  Complainant demanded form No.20 from OP No.1 for making Registration Certificate (R.C.)  of car and OP No.1 refused. Due to its non-availability; RC of the vehicle could not be made within stipulated period.  OP No.2 knowingly and intentionally shown second service of vehicle for Rs.10,000/- on 31.05.2016.  OP No.2 handed over the vehicle to complainant on 16.09.2016. Due to non-delivery of vehicle; there was delay in making of RC from concerned authority and complainant suffered loss of Rs.20820/- due to delay in its making.  On these pleas by alleging deficiency in service of OPs; complainant filed complaint.

4.      Though, OPs appeared in proceedings of complaint, but, written version was only filed by OP No.2. Defence of OP No.1 and 3 was struck off vide order dated 25.05.2017.

5.      OP No.2 in its defence has asserted that vehicle was parked in its workshop on 05.03.2016 for repairs.  It (O.P.No.2) had never shown, intentionally the second service of vehicle.    Vehicle was delivered to complainant on 16.09.2016 after repairs. Form No.20 is available at E-Disha Kender at DC Office.  OP No.2 has no concern with RC of complainant.  Dispute is between OPs No.1 and 3 and there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.2.

6.      After analyzing evidence, learned District Consumer Commission, vide order dated 30.08.2017 has partly allowed the complaint by holding that OP No.2 has wrongly charged Rs.10,630/- from complainant. Since, vehicle was insured from Bumper to Bumper, so charging of Rs.10,630/- by OP No.2 was illegal.   Since vehicle was insured with OP N0.3, so OP No.3 has been directed to make payment of Rs.10,630/- to complainant.    OP No.3 has also been directed to compensate the complainant with sum of Rs.2000/-. 

7.      Feeling dis-satisfied; complainant has filed this appeal.  No appeal has been filed by OP No.3-insurance company against impugned order dated 30.08.2017 and learned counsel appearing on its behalf has pointed out to this commission, during course of arguments  that insurer has already compliedimpugned order dated 30.08.2017.

8.      Learned counsel for appellant-complainant  has contended that her car kept on lying in the workshop of OP No.2 for repairs, from  05.03.2016 till 16.09.2016.  It was delivered to complainant on 16.09.2016. Form No.20, which was meant for preparation of registration certificate of the vehicle was not supplied to her because of the reason that the car was lying in the workshop of OP No.2.   Delay resulted in getting the RC prepared of vehicle was not on the part of complainant, instead it was on OPs No.1 and 2 (dealer and authorized service centre).  Complainant had to spend Rs.20,820/- for getting RC of the vehicle prepared from concerned authorities.  It is urged that, may be, concerned authorities could be justified in charging this amount from complainant for getting the RC of the vehicle prepared, belatedly, yet the fault of OPs N0.1 and 2 in this arena could not be ignored.  This amount should have been refunded to her and Learned District Commission has committed illegality in its order dated 30.08.2017 while not passing any direction against respondent No.1 and 2 for refund of Rs.20,820/- to complainant and impugned order dated 30.08.2017, to that extent be modified.

9.      This appeal primarily survives for claim of Rs.20,820/-, which complainant, as per her specific case had spent in process of getting prepared: registration certificate of her purchased vehicle, belatedly.  Positive case set up by complainant is that she visited at the office of OP No.1 and demanded Form No.20 for purpose of making registration certificate, upon which, she was told by O.P.No.1 that Form No.20  would be given to her, on seeing the vehicle. She was refused Form No.20 by OP No.1 due to above reason as pleaded.  It has been contended that from 05.03.2016 till 16.09.2016; her vehicle  was lying parked, under repair, in workshop of OP No.2.  After getting delivery of vehicle from workshop of OP No.2 on 16.09.2016, she had to suffer loss of Rs.20,820/- due to delay in making of Registration Certificate concerning vehicle in question.  Curiously enough, defence of OPs No.1 and 2  was struck down by learned District Consumer Commission, Sonepat  through its order dated 26.05.2017.  Legal ramifications flowing due to defence of OP Nos.1 and 2 being struck down, are enormous.  It would legally imply that positive case set up by complainant regarding non-supply of Form No.20 to her, by OP No.1 remain un-rebutted and unchallenged.  Complainant through her duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A has testified on oath about her grievance against OP No.1 regarding non-supply of Form No.20 to her and her affirmative testimony,too remain unimpeached.  Once, complainant had purchased Maruti Celerio VXI car from OP No.1 on 10.02.2016, then there was no justifiable cause by OP No.1 to deny her  Form-20, which was meant for the purpose of getting prepared, the registration certificate of purchased vehicle.    Also, there was no requirement confronting OP No.1, to physically see the vehicle in question, before issuing Form 20 to purchaser/complainant, particularly when purchase of  vehicle by complainant from OP No.1 is proved through different type of invoices, all dated 10.02.2016, which are Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 andsale certificate is Ex.C-5.Vehicle was carrying temporary number HR-99YB (Temp.) 8942 assigned to it on 10.02.2016.Unfortunately, it met with an accident few days after its purchase on 18.02.2016 and thereafter on 05.03.2016, it was parked in workshop of OP No.2 for carrying repairs.  From 05.03.2016 to 16.09.2016 (date of its delivery after repairs by OP No.2) it was impossible for complainant to bring the vehicle  in question to OP No1 in order to facilitate delivery of Form No.20 to her by OP No.1.  OP No.1 should have adopted customer friendly approach towards complainant; it could have deputed some of its officials to see/verify the complainant’s vehicle, under repair, so lying at workshop of OP No.2 and thereafter should have issued Form No.20 to complainant. Since,this has not been done, by OP No.1, therefore, deficiency in service of OP No.1 towards complainant, on above aspect (concerning issuance of Form No.20) is ex facie proved. The inept  and ignorable attitude of OP No.1 towards complainant is writ large visible.

10.    In the wake of above discussion, as a legal corollary so flowing, complainant was made to incur Rs.20,820/- for getting RC of vehicle prepared, belatedly from concerned authorities for no fault on her part.  Hence, she is entitled to refund of Rs.20,820/- from OP No.1. There is a fallacy committed by learned District Consumer Commission-Sonepat, while not granting her; amount of Rs.20,820/- (despite claimed by her in her complaint) and consequently, order dated 30.08.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Sonepat deserves modification to this extent by accepting this appeal. Hence, this appeal is allowed.  Order dated 30.08.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Sonepat is modified and consequently, prayer made by complainant in her complaint for refund of Rs.20,820/- is accepted.  OP No.1-Sidhi Vinayak Vehicle Private Limited is directed to refund amount of Rs.20,820/- to complainant along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint( 07.11.2016) till its realization.  Amount of Rs.20,820/- with interest @ 8% p.a. be now deposited by O.P.No.-1-Sidhi Vinayak Vehicle Private Limited with District Consumer Commission, Sonepat within two months from today  i.e. 30.04.2024 on the force of this order, else, the rate of interest would escalate from 8% to 12% after expiry of two months from today i.e. 30.04.2024.  

11.    Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

12.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

                                    

Date of pronouncement: 30thApril, 2024

 

         

Manjula Sharma                            Naresh Katyal             Member                             Judicial Member

Addl. Bench-II                      Addl. Bench-II