Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

RBT/CC/964/2018

Harish Chander Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tricity Autos - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwinder singh

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                  COMMISSION

                            FATEHGARH SAHIB

 

RBT No.	:	CC/964/2018
Complaint No.	:	RBT/CC/964 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	12/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	14/03/2023

 

 

Harish Chander Verma  S/o Ram Niwas Verma R/o H. No. 2487, Sector 67, Mohali Presently residing at h. no.1145, Sector 79, Mohali.

                                                                                                                     …………....Complainant

                                                Versus

 

1.  Tricity Autos, Zirakpur Patiala Highway Near Nabha Sahib  Gurudawara, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Incharge/Manager/Proprietor/Director.

 

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO no.40, First Floor, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Incharge/Manager.

 

 

                                                                              ..………....... Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986(Old)

 

Quorum

Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

 

Present: Sh. Kulwinder Singh, counsel  for complainant(through VC).

     None  for OP no.1.

    Complaint against OP no.2 not admitted, vide order dated 26.9.2018

 

Order By

     MS. SHIVANI BHARGAVA, MEMBER

 

The  complaint has been filed against the OPs (opposite parties),  Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986(old) alleging deficiency in service with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to pass the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- ,  to pay  Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  for mental and physical harassment  and Rs.55,000/-  as  cost of the present proceedings to the complainant .

1.   The OP no.1  deals in the second  hand cars selling business in their showroom.  The  complainant visited the showroom of OP no.1  to purchase a second hand car.  The OP no.1 informed the complainant that  they are having one  second hand Volkswagen Polo comfortline bearing  Car NO.HR 10 U 7352, colour-white, Engine no.CFW 350022, Chasis no.WVWA 13606DT037956 manufactured in 01/2013 year, which looks like new car and informed that it will cost Rs.2,60,000/- After perusal    of vehicle,  the complainant agreed to purchase a second hand car from OP no.1 on  8.6.2018 and  after bargaining the OP no.1 agreed to sell the same @ Rs.2,50,000/-.  The complainant  paid booking amount of Rs.10,000/- on 8.6.2018 and agreed to give the balance amount within 7 days.  Complainant paid further amount of Rs.2,40,000/- vide receipt no.2801 dated 11.6.2018.  The OP no.1 handed over all the original documents to the complainant except state NOC, without which the vehicle could not be transferred in name of buyer and the OP no.1 promised to provide NOC  within 15 days.  Since the vehicle number belongs to Haryana and the complainant was resident of Mohali, therefore the State NOC is required  and  new registration  number of vehicle is to be applied within  the district Mohali. The state NOC is necessary for getting the vehicle registered in the name of complainant and only  after that the registration can be transferred  in favour of the complainant. The complainant visited number of times  OP no.1  to get  NOC of vehicle but the OP no.1 always postponed the matter on one pretext or another and failed to handover the  NOC of vehicle. In the  absence of NOC, the complainant failed to get the registration of car transferred in his name. On 29.6.2018 the complainant parked the vehicle outside his house and in the morning of 30.6.2018 found that the vehicle  was stolen on 29.6.2018 night and the complainant immediately  gave complaint at Police station Sohana, Mohali vide DDR no.1096 dated 30.6.2018 and the FIR was lodged on the complaint of the complainant vide FIR no.0140 dated 1.07.2018. The claim for theft of vehicle was filed by the complainant  with OP no.2 vide motor accident intimation-cum-claim form dated 25.07.2018.  OP no.2 repudiated the claim filed by the complainant on the pretext that there is no legal contract with them  as the insurance policy was  not transferred in the name of complainant.  So the  complainant is not an owner of vehicle.  The claim of complainant was refused  only due to the negligence and deficiency of OP no.1  as the OP no.1 failed to provide the state NOC of vehicle to complainant even  after number of personal visits and requests made by the complainant. Hence this complaint.
2.        Notice of the complaint was given to the OP no.1 through registered Post, OP no.1 appeared through his Counsel  and filed  written version. Complaint against OP no.2 was not admitted vide order dated  26.9.2018.
3.        The complaint has been contested by the OP no.1, who filed written version , and  contested that   complainant visited OP for purchasing a second hand car.  Complainant finally opted to purchase the present vehicle in question.  The said vehicle was purchased by OP from  one  Ram  Dayal Negi and said vehicle  is registered in the name of Ram Dayal  Negi  and is registered in state of Haryana and the complainant wants to get the same registered with the state of Punjab and for that NOC is  to be obtained from the concerned registering  authority  and it was further in a very specific manner told to complainant that he can book  car and OP will take care of the same unless and until NOC is received at the end of the  registered owner from concerned department  but complainant himself refused to accept  the said offer  made by OP and paid the consideration amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on 11.6.2018  and took the car from OP  and OP issued certificate to complainant  wherein  it has been specifically stated that all the  original documents pertaining to vehicle in question has been handed over to complainant except the NOC, and the reason for pendency of NOC is very specific that OP can not ask the original owner to provide the  authority where the vehicle will be get registered as a fresh.  After  selling the above said vehicle to the complainant, OP immediately sent a letter dated 11.6.2018 along with relevant documents to  Ram Dayal Negi asking him  to provide the NOC for further handing over the same to complainant but  said Ram Dayal  Negi never turned up and failed to do the needful despite of various telephonic reminders and follow ups  by OP and each and every time  tried to delay the matter on one pretext or the other.   OP very  specifically updated the complainant that procedure of obtaining the NOC required some time and in the mean time  while OP was in process for obtaining NOC, vehicle in question was stolen on 29.6.2018 itself. Hence prayed for  dismissal of complaint with cost.
4. The complainant in support of his complaint tendered in evidence his  affidavit along with copies of  documents  i.e Ex.C1 booking receipt, EX.C2 and Ex.C3 copy of receipts dated 11.6.2018,  Ex.C4  certificate given by OP no.1, Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 RC and Insurance Policy, Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 complaint along with  FIR,  Ex.C9 postal receipts, Ex.C10, claim form, Ex.C11 claim repudiation letter,  Ex.C12  bill dated 12.8.2018. Ex.C13 bills dated 21.6.2018, Ex.C14 Letter dated 22.8.2018 to tricity Autos Zirakpur and acknowledgement  of letter by OP no.1 dated 22.8.2018 Ex.C15.
5. Heard. Entire record perused.
6. From the  perusal of  the file, it  transpires that case qua OP no.2 was not admitted by  the District Commission Mohali. Therefore OP no.2 can not be  held liable for  the claim.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that complainant purchased a second hand  Volkswagen polo car bearing no.HR 10 U 7352 white colour, Engine No.CFW 350022,, Chasis no.WVWA 13606DT037956 manufactured in 01.2013 on  11.6.2018 and paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the OP no.1 . The OP no.1 handed over all the original documents to  the complainant  except State NOC vide Ex.C4. Without NOC, the vehicle could not be  registered in the name of the buyer .  Complainant alleged that OP no.1 assured the complainant  to provide State NOC within 15 days. State NOC is required because vehicle belongs to Haryana and complainant is  resident of Mohali, Punjab. For  registration of  vehicle, State NOC is required and for Insurance, registration is required. The car was stolen on  night intervening 29.6.2018/30.6.2018 from outside  his house. Complainant immediately gave complaint  at P.S, Mohali  vide DDR no.1096 dated 30.6.2018 vide Ex.C7,.  FIR no.0140 dated 1.7.2018 regarding  theft was lodged  at Police Station , Sohana, District Mohali vide Ex.C8.  Insurance was in original  seller’ name  i.e Ram Dayal Negi, valid from 25.12.2017 to 24.12.2018 vide Ex.C10.  Insurance Company  repudiated claim  on the ground that complainant has no legal contract with the Insurance Company  and  Insured owner Ram Dayal Negi having sold the Car  has also lost  his legal rights  & remedies/ Insurable  Interest to claim  from the Insurance Company vide Ex.C11.
8. OP no.1 has rightly argued that they specifically told the complainant that he can book the car only because vehicle is registered in the name of the original owner and after State NOC is received only then vehicle will be registered in his name but complainant did not agree. They issued a certificate to complainant where it has been specifically stated that all the original documents pertaining  to vehicle in question has been handed over to the complainant except NOC.  In between process of obtaining the NOC from previous owner, car was stolen on 29.6.2018 i.e after a  gap of  19 days from  date of sale.
9.   Ld. Counsel for the complainant has failed to establish on the  record that  OP no.1 deliberately failed to provide NOC. This kind of registration processes takes some time. Unfortunately, car was stolen  within 19  days from  date of sale,  So OP no.1 can not be held  liable for anything. He was simply a facilitator in sale purchase of vehicles.  The complainant could have asked NOC from  the original owner Ram Dayal  Negi. The order of Non- admission of OP no.2 was not challenged and  same was accepted by complainant . Therefore, he cannot claim any relief from OP no.2.
10.  As a corollary of our  above discussion, the present complaint  fails and its dismissed hereby with no order as to cost.   Case could not be decided within time due to spread of Covid-19.  Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. File be returned back to District Consumer Commission , Mohali, for proper consignment.

 Pronounced 14 March 2023

                                                           

                                                                      (S.K.Aggarwal)

                                                                              President

                                                                    

    

                                                                            (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                              Member

 

                                                                              ( Manjit Singh Bhinder )

                                                                                             Member