Punjab

Jalandhar

CC/447/2014

Amarjit Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Kosmo Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Ladowali Road, District Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No - 217
JALANDHAR
(PUNJAB)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/447/2014
 
1. Amarjit Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh
R/o VPO Zahura
Hoshiarpur 144203
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Branch Manager,Kosmo Hyundai
GT Road,(Opposite Delhi Public School)Paragpur,
Jalandhar
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Jaspal Singh Bhatia PRESIDENT
  Jyotsna Thatai MEMBER
  Parminder Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Complainant in person.
 
For the Opp. Party:
Sh.Gagandeep Adv., counsel for opposite party.
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.447 of 2014

Date of Instt. 19.12.2014

Date of Decision :28.04.2015

 

Amarjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh R/o VPO Zahura, District Hoshiarpur-144203.

 

..........Complainant

Versus

 

The Branch Manager, Kosmo Hyundai GT Road, Opp.Delhi Public School, Paragpur Village, Jalandhar.

 

.........Opposite party

 

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

 

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Gagandeep Adv., counsel for opposite party.

 

Order

 

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party on the averments that he purchased Hyundai Eon Magna Plus car with Chasis No.EM314300 and Engine No.EM283331 on 8.9.2014 from Kosmo Hyundai Dealer at GT Road Jalandhar. That time the dealer had an offer, on the purchase of new car, the registration number and first insurance will be provided free of cost. Complainant opted for that. The Kosmo Hyundai promised the complainant to give above offer. It is alleged that temporary registration number which is valid for 30 days was given by the opposite party and at the time of purchase of the car road tax was 6% of showroom price of the vehicle but the State Government increased the road tax from 6% to 8% on 8.10.2014. After 30 days the complainant called the Kosmo Hundai to know about the registration number for his new car. The dealing person at the dealer end replied that due to road tax increase all the files for new registration number are on hold, all the dealers of Punjab are trying to talk to the State Government to withdraw road tax increase ruling. The complainant kept on calling after every 7-8 days. The answer from the other's end was the same until 10.11.2014. On 10th of November the complainant went to the showroom and met Mr.Vijay from RC department. Mr.Vijay took the complainant to Mr.Pankaj Sahigal. Mr.Sahigal sales manager assured the complainant that they will apply for RC within a week and they gave the complainant another temporary number receipt, which was valid for again 30 days. But after few days sales persons from Kosmo started calling the complainant every second day, to deposit 2% amount of the increased tax to apply for the registration number. The complainant purchased the car on 8.9.2014. The road tax was increased on 8.10.2014. With the negligence of the dealer now without permanent registration number plate, complainant is unable to use his car on road. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to give him the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. He has also claimed compensation.

2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant made the full payment of the car in question on 16.9.2014, provided other relevant documents for applying for RC for the car in question. The opposite party applied for the RC in the first week of July but at that time server was down and thereafter the rate of the road tax was increased on 7.10.2014, qua to which the complainant was intimated many a times but the complainant did not deposit the additional amount of 2% as increased by the government on 7.10.2014. So there is no fault on the part of the opposite party. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, Sh.HS Talwar, Legal Manager of opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of document Ex.OP1 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party.

6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. The complainant purchased the car from opposite party on 8.9.2014. This fact is not disputed. The dispute between the parties is regarding increase in road tax from 6% to 8%. Due to increase in road tax, the opposite party demanded additional amount of 2%. The road tax was increased by the State Government on 7.10.2014 and whereas the car was purchased by the complainant on 8.9.2014. It was duty of the dealer to deposit the road tax on the day of purchase of the car itself. Notification dated 28.6.2014 issued by Government of Punjab Department of Transport provides as under:-

"That no vehicle which is sold by the dealer and any native of Punjab shall be allowed to be driven/taken out of the showroom unless the temporary registration number is allotted to the vehicle by the dealer after getting the registration fee, HPA fee and the Motor Vehicles Tax(in lump sum) as fixed by the Government from time to time. The Motor Vehicles Tax and fee etc received from the purchaser/owner of the vehicle shall be deposited online system into the State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day by the dealer".

7. So from the above notification it is clear that it is duty of the dealer to deposit the road tax on the date of purchase of the vehicle by the customer. The road tax was increased after about one month by the State Government and there is no justification on the part of the opposite party in not depositing the road tax on the date of purchase itself and demanding 2% additional amount on account of increase in road tax which was increased by State Government after about one month on 7.10.2014. It constitute deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed to apply for and give the RC of the vehicle in question to the complainant without any unnecessary delay. The complainant is also awarded Rs.5000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

 

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

28.04.2015 Member Member President

 
 
[ Jaspal Singh Bhatia]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Jyotsna Thatai]
MEMBER
 
[ Parminder Sharma]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.