STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 248 of 2017

Jayant Kumar Verma, Manager, Jain Saheb, PIAGGIO Agency, Sasaram

                                                                                                                                                      … Opposite Party/Appellant

Versus

1. Surendra Dubey, Son of Late Sudarshan Dubey, Resident of Village- Madaini, PO- Dhanua, PS- Sheosagar, District- Rohtas

2.  The District Transport Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram

3.  The Manager, Sheri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Ara Branch, At + PO- Ara, PS- Ara Town, District- Bhojpur at Ara.

                                                                                                                                               …. Respondent/Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Surendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Ajay Pathak

Counsel for the Respondent no. 3: Adv. Anil Kumar & Adv. Prabhakar Mishra

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 14.02.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

Present appeal has been filed on behalf of O.pp No. 3 Jain Saheb, Piagio Agency, Sasaram for setting aside the order dated 04.08.2017 passed by Consumer Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram in Complaint Case no. 62/2012 whereby and whereunder, the District Consumer Forum, Rohtas at Sasaram has allowed the Complaint case filed by Complainant-Respondent no. 1 and directed the appellant to hand over the Tax Token, Owner Book, Insurance Paper of the vehicle, and further directed appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for physical and mental harassment within a period of one month failing which interest @10% p.a shall become payable.    

          Complainant /Respondent no. 1 had filed a complaint case before the DCF, Rohtas stating therein that he had purchased a tempo on 21.04.2012 after depositing Rs. 5,500/- as a first monthly installment and thereafter, he deposited second , third and fourth installment on 28.08.2012, 05.07.2012 & 26.07.2012 for which receipt was granted to him. After further depositing Rs. 18,500/-, the vehicle was delivered to him with an assurance that within one month ownership paper of vehicle, tax token, permit will be handed over to him after registration of the vehicle. It was further alleged that inspite of visiting several times office of the appellant –Company, no papers relating to Insurance, ownership or road tax were handed over to him as such the vehicle remained standing in the garage.  A legal notice was sent but even thereafter, no steps were taken by the appellant/complainant as such he was compelled to approach the District Consumer Forum.

          It is further stated on behalf of complainant that he deposited Rs. 1,05,000/- which included insurance fee and road tax for 10 years of Rs. 18,500/-. It is further submitted that inspite visiting several times the appellant neither provided owner book or the tax token and after six months he received notices from the office of DTO that as no road tax has been deposited, a fine of Rs. 22,000/- has been imposed and after payment of Principle amount as well as fine imposed ownership book and registration paper will be provided to the complainant. Although, complainant had deposited half of the price of the vehicle along with cost of insurance, and road tax but same was not deposited by the appellant in the DTO office as a result of which his vehicle also remained idle in absence of said papers.

          The DTO was also a made a party in the complaint case and he appeared and stated that he has unnecessarily been made party and has no concern with respect to dispute among owner, financer, and dealer of the vehicle.  He further stated that no amount with respect to road tax and other tax has been deposited in his office, as such, owner book was not delivered to the complainant. Since, registration fee had been deposited as such registration number was allotted to the vehicle. He further submitted that if road tax and other taxes along with fine is deposited then he will issue registration certificate as well as owner book.

          Notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and they appeared and filed their written statement expect Financer.

          The vehicle was purchased by the complainant after loan was sanctioned by the finance company and period of repayment of loan in monthly installment was from 20.04.2012 to 20.01.2014 i.e in twenty two monthly installments. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the finance Co. that altogether nine monthly installments were paid by the complainant and at present Rs. 1,80,270/- is due against the complainant. However, inspite of valid service of notice Finance Co. did not appear in District Forum.

 Appellant also filed his written statement in which he stated that the registration tax and other tax were to be deposited by the complainant. It is further submitted that the vehicle plied on the road from 06.03.2012 to 28.11.2012 and has travelled 21,745 kms as such the contention of complainant that the vehicle remained standing in the garage is not correct.

          It is submitted that complainant deposited Rs. 1,05,000/- to the appellant-dealer which included cost of  registration, insurance and road tax of 10 years for which receipt was provided to the complainant. Complainant had to repay the loan amount with interest which comes to Rs. 1,85,000/- in 22 monthly installment each installment of Rs. 5,500/-.

          The DCF has held that inspite of deposit of road tax, registration fee by the complainant to the appellant-dealer same was not deposited in the office of DTO as a result of which tax token and registration certificate were not issued in favour of complainant. DCF has further held that complainant had paid half of the price of the vehicle as well as Tax and insurance amount which comes to Rs. 1,05000/- which included cost of insurance, registration, and road tax for ten years amounting to Rs. 18500/- for which complainant produced valid receipt before the DCF.

          The District Consumer Forum ordered appellant to handover all the documents with respect to vehicle such as Tax Token, Owner Book, Insurance papers to the complainant within 30 days and pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant for physical and mental harassment failing which interest @10% p.a shall become payable.

          No fresh grounds have been argued in this appeal and same grounds which were taken before the District Consumer Forum have been reiterated by the counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the appellant led much stress on the fact that the vehicle was found to have travelled 21,745 KMs from date of sale i.e 06.03.2012 to 28.11.2012, as such the contention of the complainant that in absence of vehicle related documents, the vehicle had not plied on the road is incorrect. However, even assuming that vehicle had plied on the road appellant can not be absolved of its responsibility and duty to make the payment in the D.T.O office, the amount received from the complainant as registration fee, insurance fee and road tax fee which admittedly, he did not deposit in the D.T.O office resulting in fine imposed on complainant by D.T.O office.  

          The finance company has supported the complainant as such non payment of any installment by the complainant to the finance company can not be a concern for the appellant.

          The judgment and order passed by District Consumer Rohtas at Sasaram is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and this court does not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum.

          The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.  

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                           (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                             President

Md. Fariduzzama