DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                   Consumer Complaint No.139 of 2016

                                        Date of institution:   08.03.2016                                                Date of decision   :  22.11.2017

Mrs. Mandeep Kaur W/o Dr. Baljinder Singh R/o VPO Jandwala Mira Sangla, House No.13, Jandwala Mira Sangla, Fazilka.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.     The Manager, Tricity Autos, Zirakpur Patiala Highway, adjoining Nabha Sahib Gurudwara, near AKM resorts Zirakpur, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603.

2.     The Manager, Head Office, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

3.     The Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon- 122015.

        (Name of OP No.2 and 3 deleted from the array of the OPs vide order dated 15.03.2016)

                                                 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri Baljinder Singh, husband of the complainant.

                None for OP No.1.

                Name of OP No.2 and 3 already deleted from the array of the OPs.

 ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant, Mrs. Mandeep Kaur has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.            The complainant purchased a New Vehicle Swift Dezire VDI (Temporary Regn. No. PB-05-AD-1417)  from OP No.1 on 09.11.2015.  At the time of receipt of registration charges OP No.1 confirmed to the complainant that it will provide the services to the complainant and it also ensured that it will be responsible to register the said vehicle at the residence/address of the complainant i.e. VPO Jandwala Mira Sangla, Fazilka 152128. The complainant submitted the relevant documents as desired by OP No.1 to register the said vehicle in the name of complainant at Fazilka DTO.  Earlier the City Fazilka was Tehsil and later on this city was made District by Punjab Government. As per rule of Punjab Government, it is the responsibility of the Agency/OP No.1 to register the vehicle of their customer.  But OP No.1, instead of handing over the documents pertaining to Fazilka, gave the documents for submitting the same in the office of DTO Ferozepur and on the request of OP No.1, the complainant visited the office of DTO Ferozepur, but later on DTO Ferozepur declined to register the vehicle. It is further told by DTO Ferozepur to the complainant that her residential address is from Fazilka District and the complainant has to pay Rs.10,000/- extra for registration from DTO Ferozepur.  OP No.1 has failed to provide services as confirmed by it while selling the said vehicle to the complainant. The complainant had made numerous requests to OP No.1 against its illegal act but it fails to give any satisfactory response to the complainant. The complainant also got served legal notice upon OPs but all in vain. The act and conduct of OP No.1 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to OP No.1 to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant; to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges and to get registered the said vehicle at DTO Fazilka or to pay Rs.20,000/- as additional registration charges as demanded by DTO Fazilka for registration of the said vehicle at DTO Fazilka.

3.             Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.1 only as the Ld. counsel for the complainant had made a statement on 15.03.2016 that he does not want to  claim any relief against OPs No. 2 & 3 and he give up OPs No.2 & 3 from the array of the OPs. Accordingly, vide order dated 15.03.2016, the name of OPs No.2 & 3 were deleted from the array of the OPs.

4.             The complaint is contested by OP No.1, who filed its reply. In reply to the complaint OP No.1 stated that the complainant herself submitted her residential proofs and other identity proofs with OP No.1 for getting the vehicle registered and as per the proofs submitted by the complainant the residential address of the complainant is mentioned as "# 12, Jandwala Mira Sangla, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur". Accordingly, OP No.1 get the entire tax amount deposited online with the concerned authority and the thereafter handed over the registration details to the complainant for doing the needful. It is further stated that whatever is the technical problem with regard to the registration of the vehicle in question, the answer to that can only be given by the R & LA, Office Ferozepur or Fazilka as duty of OP No.1 was to get the tax deposited well in time and the same was deposited on the basis of the residential proof as submitted by the complainant. The Fazilka City was a Tehsil at the relevant time when the registration process was done and Ferozepur was district and the vehicle is always registered with in District not in a Tehsil. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             In order to prove her case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CW1/1; computer generated registration detail Ex. C-1; voter card Ex. C-2; form No. 21 Ex. C-3; provisional registration certificate Ex. C-4; letter dated 22.01.2016 Ex. C-5; legal notice Ex. C-6; letter Ex. C-7; courier receipt and postal receipt Ex. C-8; letter dated 05.04.2016 Ex. C-9 and statement of account Ex. C-10.  In rebuttal counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of Sidhart Garg, Managing Director of OP No.1 as Ex. OP1/1; copies of registration detail Ex. OP-1; form No.21 Ex.OP-2; provisional registration certificate Ex. OP-3; receipt of tax Ex. OP-4; voter ID card of complainant Ex. OP-5 and PAN card of the complainant Ex. OP-6.

6.             We have heard the authorised representative of the complainant and have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the complainant.  Neither the counsel appeared for OP No.1 nor written arguments have been filed on its behalf.  It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from OP No.1 and OP No.1 had deposited the registration fee on behalf of the complainant with the DTO Office, Ferozepur. However, when the complainant went to DTO Ferozepur, her vehicle was not registered as the village of the complainant was falling within the revenue estate of District Fazilka. The Fazilka was formed as District by the Govt. of Punjab vide notification dated 27.07.2011 attached with Ex.C-9. As per the notification the village of the complainant falls within the revenue estate of District Fazilka. The OP No.1 has taken a plea in the written statement that even if it has deposited the registration charges of the vehicle with DTO Ferozepur, it was the duty of the DTO Ferozepur not to have accepted the registration charges when the vehicles of the customers residing within the revenue estate of Fazilka were to be registered with DTO, Fazilka.   However, Deputy Commissioner Ferozepur has clearly mentioned in his report, on the complaint of the complainant, that in this episode the negligence is on the part of Tricity Auto Zirakpur (OP No.1) which had wrongly punched No.PB-05-AD-1417 whereas the complainant wants to get her vehicle registered in District Fazilka.  Accordingly, DTO Ferozepur vide his letter No.230 dated 11.03.2016 asked the Project Head (Operations) of Smart Chip Company to delete No.PB-05-AD-1417. The complainant has thus successfully proved from letter dated 05.04.2016 Ex.C-9 written by the office of Commissioner Ferozepur Division Ferozepur to Right to Service Commission, Punjab that the negligence was on the part of OP No.1 who had wrongly punched the Registration No.PB-05-AD1417 of the office of DTO Ferozepur instead of punching the registration from the office of DTO Fazilka.  Thus, the deficiency in service has been duly proved on the part of OP No.1.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct OP No.1 to get the vehicle of the complainant registered with DTO, Fazilka or to pay her Rs.15,000/-        (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) for getting the vehicle registered with DTO Fazilka. OP No.1 to further pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.  The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.            

                The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 22.11.2017    

                                           (A.P.S.Rajput)                 

President

        (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member