Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/76

Gurdit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Registration Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manish Kumar Dhingra

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                                Consumer Complaint No.76 of 2021

                                                Date of institution: 22.10.2021

                                                Date of Decision: 10.10.2022

 

Gurdit Singh aged about 29 years son of Mahinder Singh, resident of House No.37-C, Village Majri Thekedaran, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

…….Complainant

Versus

1. Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Registration Authority, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar
2. Smart Chip Private Limited, SCO 101-102, Near Sindhi Sweets, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory 

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                        Smt. Ranvir Kaur, Member

 

Present:     Sh. Manish Kumar Dhingra, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. for OP2

O.P. No.1 ex-parte.

               
 

 ORDER

RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the OP1 is deals with the services related to the registration certificate of vehicle such as transfer of ownership, removal of hypothecation, renewal of registration certificate etc. and OP2 provide scosta certified smart card registration certificate and other services across all offices of the Transport Department in the State of Punjab. The complainant had purchased one Bolero Car bearing registration No.PB-12-Q-7733 from the its previous owner Chanpreet Singh son of Kirpal Singh, resident of Village Surewal Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. The complainant had completed all the formalities for transfer of ownership of said vehicle and approached the office of OP1 for submitting the file for transfer of ownership of above said vehicle in his name and the concerned official in the office of OP No.1 generated ID for uploading the documents and for depositing of prescribed fees for transfer of ownership and provided the ID to the complainant. Through ID complainant succeeded to upload the documents and deposited an amount of Rs.3735/- as prescribed fee for transfer of ownership along with other necessary charges. On 1.3.2021, complainant had deposited complete file along with original documents such as original RC, affidavits and other documents as required by the OP1 and payment slip to the OP No.1 and after verifying the all the documents, concerned official of the OP1 had issued receipt duly signed and stamped. The complainant approached OP1 many times and requested to transfer of ownership of said vehicle in his name and issuance of registration certificate of said vehicle in the name of the complainant but OP1 pretext the matter one pretext or other and unnecessarily harassing the complainant as complainant did not approach through an agent or broker and lastly on 23.3.2021, the OP1 approved the file for transfer of ownership after the expiry of approximately 23 days on continuously repeated requests of complainant. Original file in respect of transfer of ownership of vehicle is in custody of the OP1. At the time of deposited of file for transfer of ownership of vehicle, the concerned official of the OP1 assured to the complainant that registration certificate in the name of the complainant will be sent to the communication address of the complainant by the OP2. After the expiry of the more than six months, the OPs failed to provide registration certificate of the vehicle in question to the complainant till today.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP. for the said act and conduct, the complainant has sought the following relief:-

1. To direct the OPs to provide the registration certificate of the vehicle in question in the name of the complainant 
2. To direct the OP1 to provide original file in respect of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question which is submitted before OP by the complainant.
3. To direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant
4. Any exemplary punitive damages in favour of the complainant and against the OPs as deemed fit and proper Or any other relief, which is made out from the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted in favour of the complainant and against the OPs

2.            On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.1  Accordingly, the OP1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.03.2021

3.          The learned counsel for the OP2 has filed written reply taken preliminary objections; that at the very outset the answering OP denies all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint filed by the complainant except to the extent it is expressly admitted; that the complainant is not a consumer under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act; that the present reply is being filed through Mr. Parveen Sagar, authorized representative Smart Chip Private Limited, Mr. Parveen Sagar is well aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. On merits, it is stated that the OP has already delivered the registration certificate in question to the complainant. It is apposite to note here that the answering OP is only responsible for the printing of the certificate of registration and driving license in the State of Punjab. The answering OP can print the said documents only once the data is made available to it. In the present case, the data had been made available to the answering OP on 24.11.2021. Thereafter, the vehicle registration certificate was printed on 24.11.2021 and dispatched on 25.11.2021 by the answering OP. The vehicle registration certificate was delivered to the complainant on 27.11.2021. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.          The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP2 has also tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Parveen Sagar Ex.OP2/1 along with documents Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/4 and closed the evidence.

5.          We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

6.          From the perusal of the documents placed on record by both the parties, it reveals that the OP has issued the receipt Ex.C2, vide which the complainant has applied the registration certificate. After this receipt the complainant has not suffered any kind of loss. The learned counsel for the OP during the arguments stated that the OP has issued the Registration Certificate in favour of the complainant. Therefore, there is no point in running this complaint. Therefore, the complainant did not suffer any physical and mental or monetary loss. So he is not entitled to compensation.  

7.          In view of the discussion made above, the present complaint stands dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

•  

October 10 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

•  

                                               

 

(Ranvir Kaur)

•