Haryana

Panchkula

CC/276/2020

PUNEET KULSHRESTHA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE PASCO AUTOMOBILES. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON.

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	276 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	10.09.2020
Date of Decision	:	22.08.2022

 

Puneet Kulshtrestha, S/o H.C.Kulshrestha, R/o Apartment 17, GH-21, Sector-5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula-134114

                                                                        ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

1.     The Pasco Automobiles, Pasco House, 6 Old Delhi Gurgaon Road,       Sector-18, Industrial Estate, Gurgaon-122015.

2.     ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 401-402, Interface    Bldg,         No.11, Link Road, Malad(West), Mumbai-400064.

                                                                       ……Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Arjun Kundra, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already given up vide order dated                                     17.02.2021.

                       

                       

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

 

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant has purchased Maruti Suzuki Celerio with Registration no.HR 03 X 5098 through OP by exchanging his car Maruti Esteem with Registration No.HR-26-AC-8031 on 14.07.2018. He bought the car Celerio after paying full amount deducting exchange value of Esteem which was sold to dealer under the terms of exchange process. As per purchase agreement and delivery receipt,  the dealer is responsible for Esteem’s maintenance, Accident, Road Tax, Insurance, Challans or any kind of misuse as mentioned by Delivery Receipt issued by the Dealer.  As per Registration Process(Exchange Seller), it was the responsibility of  dealer to transfer ownership of Esteem. The dealer will also facilitate to transfer the ownership of Esteem as all documents required were signed by the complainant and given to dealer at the time of this deal. The complainant had got the insurance via ICICI Lombard via Policy No.3001/151459981/00/000 on Esteem which was issued on 14.07.2018 worth Rs.7,071/-. After selling esteem back to dealer, he initiated cancellation of policy with ICICI Lombard to get refund of this insurance policy. On 10.08.2018, ICICI Lombard informed him that as per Government of India notification, complainant is supposed to provide either endorse RC and alternative policy copy or if the vehicle is selling in scarp kindly share scrap letter. After that, he sent the request to dealer on 02.11.2018 requesting the same and the dealer responded the email and stated that they will send the necessary documents by 03.11.2018 which were never received. Dealer sent the copies of affidavit and other documents but not the exact documents which should have been prepared as per insurance company directions. He shared the received documents with insurance company and was informed that these documents were not sufficient and they still need documents suggested earlier. The complainant again sent the reminder on 12.11.2018 via email but he did not receive the documents till 14.07.2019. On 15.09.2019, Esteem is still being shown as registered under the complainant. After exchange of complainant’s notice with dealer, they responded back with same documents again on 16.09.2019 which were again exchanged with ICICI Lombard. The ICICI Lombard again rejected these documents on 10.10.2019. Thereafter, the complainant has served a legal notice upon the OP on 16.10.2019 through speed post but no response has been received from the OP. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notices, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action, no locus-standi; time barred; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; not come with clean hands and suppressed the true material facts.  It is stated that the complainant approached the OP No.1 and purchased Maruti Suzuki Celerio on 14.07.2018 by exchanging his Maruti Esteem. The value of the said Esteem Rs.26,000/-. The complainant wrote to the OP No.1 and demanded the following documents: Either alternative policy and endorsed RC(if vehicle is sold) or if it is sold in Scrap then kindly share scrap letter”.  The OP No.1 informed him that on 14.07.2018 they have sold the Esteem car in Scrap to a Scrap Dealer-Mr.Ghanshyam Arora S/o Dwarka Nath and his Scrap Certificate in the shape of his affidavit dated 17.07.2018 along with the Chassis ID plate and R/C copy were duly forwarded to the complainant. Even a letter in this regard was also duly sent to the complainant by the Sourcing Incharge of the OP No.1.  The said affidavit dated 17.07.2018 etc. was duly received and acknowledged by the complainant. The OP No.1 has duly submitted the Affidavit of the Scrap Dealer, Chassis ID Plate and R/C handed over the same to him. The complainant is required to approach the designated RTO with the aforesaid documents and get the vehicle de-registered from the concerned RTO and the RTO will give him conformation of the vehicle being scrapped and further submit his claim, for refund of his insurance amount, if any, with OP No.2. On merits, it is stated that the Registered Owner has to get the same effected from the concerned RTO and it is the sole duty of the complainant to get the same done being the registered owner of the vehicle and all the documents in this regard, have already been sent to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 and the complainant has not suffered any harassment or agony and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure R1/A along with documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/4 and closed the evidence.

                During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has tendered his affidavit on 17.02.2022, which was taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the proper adjudication of the case.

4.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel OP No.1 and gone through the entire record available on file including written arguments filed by the complainant as well as OP No.1, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, a new car, namely, Maruti Celerio having registration no.HR 03 X 5098(hereinafter referred to as Celerio) was purchased by the complainant on 14.07.2018 from OP No.1 by making payment vide bill (Annexure C-1) and a old car i.e. Maruti Esteem having registration no.HR 26 AC 8031 was delivered to OP No.1 in exchange at the price of Rs.26,000/- vide delivery receipt(Annexure C-2(colly)). The complainant has no grievance qua the purchase of the new car i.e. Celerio but he has the grievance qua the esteem car, which was given to the OP in exchange on the ground that the OP had failed to facilitate the work pertaining to cancellation of registration of the said old car. Allegedly, the de-registration of the said old car is required by the complainant for the refund of premium amounting to Rs.7,071/- from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.

                During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that it was binding upon the OP No.1 to get the registration of the old vehicle cancelled from the O/O RTA concerned and in this regard, relied upon Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4, wherein it is mentioned that the dealer will facilitate the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in the registration certificate. Alleging the lapses and deficiencies on the part of the OP, the complainant has claimed the relief as prayed for in the complaint.  It has also been prayed that the confirmation about the de-registration of old car along with scrapping of car from concerned RA under MV Act be provided to the complainant.

6.             The OP No.1 contested the complaint on several grounds. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 while reiterating the averments made in the written statement contended that the complainant was provided the affidavit dated 17.07.2018 of scrap dealer, namely, Sh. Ghanshyam Arora s/o Sh.Dwarka Nath alongwith his Identity Card and proof of chassis, ID Plate and RC. It is contended that the said affidavit was duly received and acknowledged by the complainant. It is contended that the complainant has asked for the scrap letter from the OP No.1, which was duly provided to the complainant. It is vehemently contended that the complainant was required to approach the concerned O/o RTO with the aforesaid documents so as to get the de-registration of the vehicle and thereafter, he could approach the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd. so as to get the refund of the insurance amount, if any. The learned counsel invited our attention towards Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which provides that the owner of vehicle shall get the registration of vehicle cancelled and thus, it is contended that it was the duty of the complainant being owner of vehicle to approach the concerned O/o RTA  along with the scrap letter, affidavits etc. for cancellation of registration of the vehicle. The learned counsel has further, opposed the taking of affidavit as Mark ‘A’ in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court vide its judgment delivered on 05.11.2012 in the case titled as Depot Manager, APSRTC, Zaheerabad, Medak, District Vs. B. Narasimhulu and Anr. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous baseless and meritless.

7.             It is correct that as per Section 55 of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is owner of the vehicle, who is authorized to get the registration of the vehicle cancelled from concerned Registering Authority, but in the present case, the complainant was assured by OP No.1 as specifically pleaded vide para no.6 & 7 of the complaint that the dealer i.e. OP No.1 will facilitate the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in the registration certificate. A perusal of Annexure C-3 & C-4 clearly makes it evident that it was the dealer i.e. OP No.1, who was to facilitate the work qua cancellation of registration of the vehicle. No doubt the application along with scrap letter etc. was supposed to be delivered in the O/o concerned Registering Authority under M.V.Act(hereinafter referred to as RA under MV Act) under the signature of the complainant i.e. the owner of vehicle but job of the OP No.1 was to facilitate the entire exercise qua cancellation of registration of vehicle by submitting the relevant documents i.e. an application, affidavit of the complainant, if required, scrap letter, affidavit of the scrap dealer etc. in the O/o concerned RA under MV Act, which he had failed to perform. It is not the case of OP No.1 that the complainant had ever denied to submit required application or affidavit etc. Though the OP No.1 has denied that the Annexure C-3 & C-4 are not  related to it but the said denial carry no force and substance as the said annexures bear the name of Maruti Suzuki Arena over them, which is a sister concern of OP No.1. Further, the Annexure C-4 bears the name of the Pasco Automobiles over it; thus, the OP No.1 cannot be permitted to run away from its duty of extending its facilitation qua the cancellation of registration of the vehicle.

8.             Having stated so, it is pertinent to mention that as per Section 55 of Motor Vehicle Act, it is the owner of the vehicle, who alone is authorized to get cancellation of registration of his vehicle. Therefore, it was the duty of the complainant to contact the concerned Registering Authority under Motor Vehicle Act(hereinafter referred to as RA under MV Act), which he failed to perform.  It is not the case of the complainant that he had ever approached the concerned RA under MV Act, but failed to get the cancellation of registration of his vehicle for want of proper cooperation and guidance from the OP No.1. Thus, the complainant was also negligent in the matter.           

9.             From the aforesaid discussion, it is made out that it is a case of contributory negligence, where both the parties led to the present situation due to their act and conduct. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, it would meet the ends of justice if OP No.1 is directed to make the payment of Rs.2,500/- as compensation to the complainant for its failure in providing  the necessary assistance qua the de-registration  of the vehicle from the concerned RA under MV Act. The complainant has already dropped his claim qua the refund of insurance fee amounting to Rs.7,071/- vide order dated 21.04.2022. However, the complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation charges.

10.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1.     The OP No.1 is directed to make the payment of Rs.2,500/- as compensation to the complainant for its failure in providing  the necessary assistance qua the de-registration  of the vehicle from the O/o concerned RA under MV Act.
2.     The complainant may get the vehicle de-registered from the O/o concerned RA under MV Act at his own level. The necessary letter alongwith duly sworn affidavit dated 17.08.2018 of scrap dealer i.e. Sh.Ghanshyam Arora s/o Sh.Dwarka Nath alongwith his Identity Card and proof of chassis, ID Plate and RC already stands delivered  to the complainant by OP no.1. It is clarified that if any document is required by the complainant from OP No.1 in-connection with the de-registration of the vehicle then the OP no.1 shall make every endeavor to provide the same to the complainant.
3.     The OP No.1 is further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,500/-to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

11.            The OP No.1 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP No.1. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 22.08.2022

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                Member                  Member                                President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                               Member