Delhi

North East

CC/237/2015

Sunder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Transport Department - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 237/15

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh.Sunder S/o Sh. Mange Ram 174, E-2 Nand Nagri Delhi-110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Transport Department GNCTD 5/9, Under Hill Road Delhi-110054 (Through Its Commissioner)   M/s Rajiv Raj Motors A-6 100 Ft. Road Shahdara, Delhi-110094	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                     DATE OF DECISION:

08.07.2015 20.02.2023 28.02.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

     Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1.  The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant booked an Auto Rickshaw with the Opposite Party No. 2 vide receipt No. 2163 dated 27.10.2012 for Rs. 5,000/- and the total price of the said Auto Rickshaw was Rs. 1,89,173/- out of which a sum of  Rs. 59,173/- was paid by the Complainant and the remaining Rs. 1,30,000/- was financed by M/s Mahavira Finlease Ltd for which Complainant has to pay monthly EMI of Rs. 6,990/-. After collecting all the charges like cost of auto, road tax, fee for issue of registration mark, permit fee, fee for preparation of Smart Optical Vehicle Registration Charges, Insurance Premium, cost of Fare meter etc., the Opposite Party No. 2 had delivered the auto with the registration number DL 1R N9064 on 10.02.2013 and issued photocopy of Invoice No. 1802 dated 10.02.2013.  The Complainant submitted that he was having all the relevant documents which are necessary for plying an auto like Driving license, Badge no. and TSR permit. It is pertinent to mention here that   the power to issue Registration Certificate of motor vehicles in Delhi has been delegated by Opposite party No.1 to dealers of said vehicles for which Opposite Party No.2 has to submit requisite documents to Opposite Party No.1 within 7 days after the delivery/sale of the vehicle for registration and provide Registration Certificate to Complainant. However, Opposite Parties did not provide Registration Certificate to Complainant despite repeated requests. In absence of Registration Certificate, Complainant was not in a position to ply the auto as it was violation of traffic rules and regulations. The Complainant submitted that he plied his auto upto 23.07.13 allowable period on strength of temporary receipt and after 24.07.13 he did not ply his auto and it was lying standstill due to which he had lost his bread earning estimated as Rs. 1,000/- per day. The Complainant had filed consumer complaint before this Commission seeking direction to provide Registration Certificate of vehicle. Summons was issued which were served to Opposite Party No.2 on 13.01.14 when Registration Certificate was duly provided by Opposite Party No.2 to Complainant. The Registration Certificate was provided after period of 11 months from date of delivery of the TSR. So, Complainant filed RTI application dated 16.06.14 to Opposite Party No.1. In reply to RTI Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the documents for registration for vehicle were submitted by Opposite Party No. 2 on 04.03.13 and Registration Certificate smart card was prepared and delivered by Opposite Party No.1 to Opposite Party No.2 on 26.12.13. Aforesaid admission of Opposite Party No.1, Complainant withdrew his consumer compliant on 15.02.15 with liberty to file afresh  by impleading the Opposite Party No.1 also. On 02.05.14 complainant also filed an RTI and sought from Opposite Party No.1 the copies of documents filed by Opposite Party No.2 and Complainant carried this matter to Central Information Commission where Opposite Party No.1 was directed to provide copies to the Complainant within 15 days. On examination of documents, Complainant came to know that invoice no.  1802 has been issued on 10.02.13 but it was altered to 15.02.13 at time of filing before Opposite Party No.1 which does not bear signature of Complainant. The vehicle was delivered on 10.02.13 whereas sale certificate filed by Opposite Party No. 2 before Opposite Party No.1 shows date of sale as 25.02.13. The vehicle was delivered on 10.02.13 but insurance cover note was issued from 02.02.13 to 01.02.14. The vehicle was delivered on 10.02.13 after recovering all the charges amounting to Rs. 5,450/- whereas the said taxes were remitted by Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.1 on 04.03.13 vide receipt no. DL 300221. The Complainant stated that document for registration was submitted by Opposite Party No.2 on 04.03.13 whereas the said documents were to be submitted latest by 17.02.13 within 7 days from date of sale and Opposite Party No.1 took 9 months and 22 days to issue Registration Certificate smart card to Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 kept the same with it and handed over to Complainant on 13.01.14. Both Opposite Parties takes 11 months to issue Registration Certificate of the said vehicle, hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs. 1,74,000/- to the Complainant towards compensation which is quantified @ 1,000/- per day for the loss of livelihood from 24.07.2013 to 13.01.14, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment, and to pay a sum of Rs. 22,000/- towards cost of litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer u/s 02 of the CPA, 1986. It is also stated that complaint is not maintainable for want of notice u/s 80 CPC, the complaint is barred by limitation and by principle of double jeopardy. Opposite Party No.1 denied the allegations of the Complainant. It is stated that preparation of Registration Certificate involves the process of verification etc. which takes time. The Opposite Party No.1 also filed additional reply. It is stated that Registration Certificate could not be prepared as it took time for verification of caste certificate of the Complainant. It is stated that letter no. F.No.MLO(NEZ) was issued to Tehsildar, North East, Seemapuri, Delhi for verification of the caste certificate. But no verification report was received. It is stated that Complainant never approach the Transport Department for collecting the Registration Certificate nor he provided the verification report of his caste certificate.  The Complainant also never approach for extension of the vehicle no. slip. It is prayed that the complaint is dismissed.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement to the complaint of the Complainant. It is denied that the powers and functions of Motor License Officer to issue the Registration Certificate of the motor vehicles in Delhi have been delegated by the Transport Department NCT of Delhi to the dealers of the said vehicle however it is submitted that the duty of the dealer is only to apply for registration with the Transport Department and it is further the duty in the hands of Transport Department to make the Registration Certificate and sent it to the dealer. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has applied for the registration of the vehicle of the Complainant on 04.03.2013 and the time taken between sale and the registration application is general processing time as it takes some time for receiving documents from finance entity and some time is taken by the Transport Department for preparation of the Registration Certificate. It is denied that in the absence of the Registration Certificate the Complainant was not in a position to ply the auto and it further denied that the auto was lying standstill from 24.07.13. It is submitted that the time taken by Opposite Party No.2 which is about 21 days between sale and the registration application is general processing time. It is submitted that the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost.

Rejoinders to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

6. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 1 filed affidavit of Shri Rajesh Kumar, Motor Licensing Officer, Auto Rickshaw Unit, Burari, Delhi, wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No.1 as mentioned in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

7. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No. 2 filed affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Tyagi, A-1 Jhilmil Industrial Area main GT road, Dilshad Garden area Delhi 110095, wherein he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No.2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by complainant and Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased an Auto Rickshaw from Opposite Party No.2 and completed the formalities for getting the Registration Certificate /Number of the said TSR. It is his case that he was not given any Registration Certificate by the Opposite Parties and on this account he could not ply his Auto Rickshaw. It is the case of the Complainant that a temporary receipt was given to him and on the basis of the same he plied the Auto Rickshaw upto 23.07.13 and thereafter he could not ply his Auto Rickshaw for want of Registration Certificate. Due to this, the Complainant lost his livelihood. As per the case of Complainant on 13.01.14 the Complainant has alleged that he had applied for certain information under the RTI Act but the same was not provided to him. Ultimately the same was provided to him as per the direction of Central Information Commission. The Complainant has earlier filed a complaint No. 02/14 before this forum and the same was withdrawn by the Complainant on 10.02.15. Thereafter, the Complainant has filed the present complaint as he was given liberty to file fresh complaint in accordance with law.
9. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the procedure for getting the Registration Certificate / Number takes some time as certain formalities have to be completed. The case of Opposite Party No.1 is that some time was taken for verification of the caste certificate of the Complainant.
10. As per the case of Complainant, he was given a Temporary Receipt at the time of purchasing the Auto Rickshaw and on the basis of said Temporary Receipt he plied his Auto Rickshaw up to 23.07.13. There is nothing on record to show that the Complainant approach the Transport Department or Opposite Party No.2 for extension of the date of the Temporary Receipt. A man of ordinary prudence would have contacted the Transport Department or the seller of the Auto Rickshaw for the extension of the date of the Temporatry Receipt and the date could have very easily extended and the Complainant must have plied his Auto Rickshaw on the basis of the said Temporary Receipt. But in the present case the Complainant has failed to show that he did any sincere efforts for getting the date extended. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the delay occurred in preparation of the verification of the caste certificate of the Complainant. The Complainant has not controverted this fact in any manner. The case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that there was some delay in forwarding the case of the Complainant to the Transport Department and the said delay was not intentional rather was due to the fact that some time is consumed in completion of the procedure. The Complainant has also not controverted this fact in any manner.
11.  As discussed above, the Complainant has earlier filed a complaint bearing complaint no. 02/14 before this Forum and the same was withdrawn by him after he received the Registration Certificate. The perusal of the said complaint shows that it was filed only against the M/s Rajiv Raj Motors which is now Opposite Party No.2 in the present complaint.  It is further revealed from the said complaint i.e. 02/14 that the prayer made in the present complaint and the previous complaint is the same. The case of the Complainant is that he has filed the present complaint only after receiving certain information under the RTI Act. The Complainant has filed an application dated 15.12.14 for impleading the Transport Department as Opposite Party in complaint no. 02/14 and the said application was filed on the basis of the information received by the Complainant under RTI Act. This application filed by the Complainant was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.14. This order has attained finality. Therefore, it is very much clear that the Transport Department was not considered as a necessary party by this Forum. Now, under the garb of information received by the Complainant under RTI Act, the Complainant cannot be allowed to implead the Transport Department as a necessary party by way of this fresh complaint.
12. The case of the Complainant is that he could not ply his Auto Rickshaw after 23.07.13 as he was not having the Registration Certificate. The case of the Complainant is that he has lost his livelihood. No evidence has been led by the Complainant to show that he was not doing any work/ job after 23.07.13. Therefore, it cannot be believed that Complainant lost his livelihood after 23.07.13.
13. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint. The complaint is dismissed accordingly.  
14. Order announced on 28.02.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President