Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/267/2020

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ajay Matana

15 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION; FATEHABAD

          C.C.No.267 of 2020.               Date of Instt.:13.10.2020 Date of Order: 15.11.2023

Satish Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass resident of House No.88, Ward No.14, Yog Nagar, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant.

          Versus

TVS Shakti Motors Pvt. Ltd. through its authorized dealer Sirsa Road, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

          ..Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Before:        Sh. Rajbir Singh, President.                                                               Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member.                                                             Sh.K.S.Nirania, Member

Present:       Sh.Ajay Matana, Advocate for the complainant.                                 Sh.Vinod Madan, Advocate for Op.        

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT;

                   By way of this complaint, the complainant has submitted that on 31.03.2017 he had purchased a scooty Vego from OP by the making the cash payment; that the OP had to issue online Farm 20 for getting the vehicle registered but after lapsing of 2.5 years, the Op has not issued the same despite the fact that the complainant has demanded the same from the Op many a times; that the complainant is still requesting the Op either to issue the Form 20 or to take the vehicle back and even got served legal notice upon it but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Op clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. In evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5.

2.                          On notice, Op appeared and filed its reply wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, suppression of material facts, maintainability and locus standi etc. It has been further submitted that at the time of purchase of vehicle the Op had issued Form  22 alongwith invoice No.930 and other mandatory documents; that it was for the complainant to get the vehicle registered at its own, therefore, there is no deficiency in service in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Other contentions of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence the Op has tendered affidavit Annexure CW1/A and document Annexure R1 to Annexure R5.

3.                          Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for its dismissal.

4.                          The fact regarding purchasing of vehicle TVS Wego (Ex.C4) by the complainant from the Op is not disputed. The complainant has come with the plea that the OP had not issued online Form 20 which was mandatory for getting the vehicle registered despite lapsing of 2.5 years. Perusal of the case file reveals that the vehicle in question was purchased on 31.03.2017 (Ex.C4). During the course of arguments learned counsel for the OP has produced before us a notification dated 29.05.2017 issued by Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and submitted that at the time of purchase of vehicle by the complainant no Online Dealer Point System was provided to the dealers and it was recommended for providing the same to all the Registering and Licensing Authority of Haryana State. The supported document attached with this notification further reveals that the Online Dealer Point System was to be applicable in the District Fatehabad from 27 June, 2017. Since the complainant had purchased the vehicle in the Month of March, 2017, therefore, it was the duty of the complainant to get the vehicle registered in his name at his own. It is not the case of the complainant that the OP has no issued the other documents rather the Op has specifically mentioned in its reply that all the requisite documents were given to the complainant at the time of purchasing/delivering of the vehicle, therefore, at this stage, we do not find any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Op.

5.                          Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice, on part of the Op, so as to make it liable in this matter to any extent. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.  In the given circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of this Commission, for perusal of parties herein. Case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated: 15.11.2023

                  

          (K.S.Nirania)               (Harisha Mehta)                     (Rajbir Singh)                      Member                                 Member                               President