Sri Kamal De, President
The Complainant, as we find, has filed this case for rectification of an alleged wrong entry in the registration certificate of his motor bike, “Hero Super Splender”.
In brief, the case of the Complainant, is that he purchased a motor bike “Super Splender” bearing registration no. WB-30P-5449 from the OP No. 1 on 20-11-2013 on full payment of the price of the said bike amounting to Rs. 51,692/- by cash. It is the further case of the Complainant that besides the price of the bike, OP No. 1 also realized from him a sum of Rs. 9,637/- and Rs. 1,334/- towards registration and 1st year insurance charge, respectively. It is alleged that upon receipt of the registration certificate, he noticed an anomaly in the said certificate, i.e., “Hypothecation with Family Credit Ltd., KGP 721630”. It is the case of the Complainant that insofar as he purchased the said bike after making full payment of the same in cash, there was no question of such entry in the registration certificate. It is alleged that although he requested the OPs to take necessary steps to rectify the anomaly several times, they remained unperturbed to his repeated request and appeal. Hence, this case.
The case of the OP No. 1, on the other hand, is that Complainant purchased the Hero Motor Cycle from his showroom on 21-10-2012 with the due finance from the OP No. 2. It is also stated that the Complainant did not fulfil few conditions of the said financier and thereafter, he paid full amount of the said vehicle on 20-11-2013. Denying any laches on his part, the OP No. 1 has blamed the M.V. Department as well as the OP No. 2 for the present situation.
Notice of present case was served upon the OP No. 2 on 10-02-2016. However, it did not turn up to contest this case. Hence, the case is heard ex parte against it.
The crux of the controversy is whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
It is claimed by the Complainant that on 20-11-2013, he purchased the motor bike in question on payment of total cost, including statutory duties, insurance etc. in cash. In support of his contention, he has attached photocopies of money receipt dated 20-11-2013 for an amount of Rs. 51,692/-, payment details acknowledging receipt of money under different heads by the OP No. 1 vide receipt no. 422 dated 20-11-2013 for an amount of Rs. 61,329/-, including Registration and Insurance charge amounting to Rs. 9,637/-, Life time Tax Token 04-12-2013, certificate of insurance for the period from 12:56 o’clock on 25-11-2013 to mid-night of 24-11-2014, certificate of registration, legal notice dated 05-08-2015. It is claimed by the Complainant that OP No.1, apart from the cost of the motor bike amounting to Rs. 51,692/- also charged him Rs. 9,637/- as registration and insurance charge, another sum of Rs. 1,334/- toward 1st year insurance premium and Rs. 502/- as extra Road Tax and the entire amount was paid in one go by him in cash on 20-11-2013. It is alleged that, despite payment of necessary charges by the Complainant, an erroneous registration was provided to him after few months and his repeated pleas to rectify the same fell on deaf ears.
The OP No. 1 has disputed such contention of the Complainant stating that the said motor bike was actually purchased by the Complainant on 21-10-2012 and the OP No. 2 was roped in to finance for the same. To substantiate his case, OP No. 1 has filed photocopies of road challan of even date and photocopy of another illegible document.
On a reference to the photocopy of the disputed registration certificate it appears that against Column No. 23, there is a remark, “Hypothecation with Family Credit Ltd., KGP, KGP 721630”. Curiously, OP No. 1 has not furnished any supporting document pertaining to alleged hypothecation of the vehicle in question. We also notice several discrepancies in the documents on record vis-à-vis contention of the OP No. 1.
First, on the back side of the document, namely, ‘payment details’ dated 20-11-2013, there is an endorsement made on behalf of the OP No. 1 confirming receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,836/- on 20-11-2013 – Rs. 1,334/- being 1st year insurance and Rs. 502/- as extra road tax. No convincing articulation is made from the side of the OP No. 1 to clarify this endorsement.
Secondly, the Insurance Certificate dated 25-11-2013, issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd., in respect of the motor bike in question shows the manufacturing year of the insured vehicle concerned as 2013. There is no clarity from the side of the OP No. 1 how could it be possible.
Thirdly, Certificate of Registration on record too mentions the year of manufacture of the motor bike concerned as 2013. The OP No. 1 has maintained a studded silence in this regard.
Fourthly, the OP No. 1 has not brought on record copy of any Tax Invoice as regards alleged sale of the motor bike concerned on 21-10-2012.
Fifthly, according to the W.V. filed by the OP No. 1, it sold the disputed motor bike to the Complainant on 21-10-2012, whereas, the photocopy of delivery challan placed by it in support of its case denotes the date as 21-11-2012. Such anomaly does raise eyebrows.
Sixthly, there is no parity in the engine no. as mentioned in the Certificate of Registration placed on record from the side of the Complainant vis-à-vis delivery challan placed from the side of the OP No. 1. OP No. 1 has refrained from tendering any clarification in this regard.
Seventhly, the photocopy of delivery challan dated 21-11-2012 does not bear vital information pertaining to the vehicle, viz., registration no., chassis no. The same has also not been placed on record under affidavit.
Significantly, the OP No. 1 has not disputed the authenticity of the documents on record put forth from the side of the Complainant by bringing on record reliable counter documents. In fact, as noted hereinabove, the mismatch in the the delivery challan placed on record by the OP No. 1 vis-à-vis date of sale mentioned by it in the W.V. does not support its own case, although, OP No. 1 submitted photocopy of another document containing the purported signature of the Complainant. However, insofar as other details of the same are not at all legible, we afraid, the same does not lead us to anywhere and as such, we are not inclined to take any cognizance thereof.
On the other hand, admittedly, the Complainant has paid total cost of the motor bike to the OP No. 1 on 20-11-2013. Against this backdrop, one wonders, what prevented it from lending its helping hands to the Complainant to get the Certificate of Registration in order through M. V. Department.
On the face of documents placed on record by the Complainant, the disputed entry in the Certificate of Registration, i.e., “Hypothecation with Family Credit Ltd., KGP. KGP 721630” appears to be totally out of sync and for such gross anomaly in a vital document like registration certificate, the OP No. 1 cannot shrug off its responsibility, moreso, when the OP No. 1 has received money for registration certificate from the complainant. However, what we find is that, instead of extending due cooperation to its customer, it has completely disowned its liability and not only blamed the Complainant and the OP No. 2 for such mess up, in fact, it has come up with the plea of selling the vehicle in question to the Complainant on 21-10-2012. It is another matter that such feeble defense on the part of the OP No. 1 fall flat on the face of impeccable documents placed from the side of the Complainant. It is a clear case of both unfair trade practice and gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We, therefore, hold them liable to pay compensation and litigation cost to the Complainant besides taking necessary measures to get the Certificate of Registration rectified.
Consequently, this case is decided in favour of the Complainant.
Hence,
ORDERED
that C. C. No. 10/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against the OP No. 2. Both the OPs are directed to take necessary steps to facilitate issuance of a Certificate of Registration duly rectified removing the insertion of “hypothecation with family credit ltd. KGP, KGP-721630” through the M. V. Department within 40 days from the date of this order and also to pay jointly and severally, compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,000/-, in equal proportion respectively, i.d., Complainant would be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with law in which case, both the OPs shall be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem from this day till compliance of this order in toto.
