STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Satnam Singh son of late Sh.Gurmukh Singh, resident of Flat No.401, 4^th Floor, Marigold Tower, Sector 70, Soul Mayfair, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.     Ultimate Automobiles (P) Ltd., 155, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh, through its Chief Executive Officer Satish Kumar Ahuja.

2.     Satish Kumar Ahuja, Chief Executive Officer, Ultimate Automobiles (P) Ltd., 155, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents/Opposite parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Varinder Arora, Adv. for the appellant

PER  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.2.2012, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant in the following manner :-

“8.     In view of the above, the OPs are directed to issue the duplicate of final invoice and bill, form No.22 and sale letter pertaining to the vehicle in question forthwith to the complainant. No order as to costs. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

2.                     The facts, in brief, are that on 11.5.2011 the complainant booked a Hyundai Verna Car with the opposite parties, and paid a sum of Rs.1 lac. Thereafter, another amount of Rs.3,38,000/- was paid vide receipt dated 19.7.2011.  The remaining amount was to be paid by the HDFC Bank directly to the opposite parties. It was stated that at the time of delivery of the car on 20.7.2011, temporary registration No.CH-12(T)-1309 was allotted and the same was valid for one month.  However, it was alleged that the final invoice and bill, Form No.22 and sale letter, which were required for the registration of vehicle, were not supplied. It was further stated that due to non-supply of the above said documents, the vehicle could not be got registered. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.9.2011 to the opposite parties, but to no avail.  When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                     In their written reply, the opposite parties, did not dispute the sale of car, in question, to the complainant.  However, it was stated that as per Annexure R/1 to R-6, the complainant had received the documents pertaining to the sale of the car.  It was further stated that vide the receipt Annexure R-1, the complainant himself acknowledged the receipt of the documents.  It was further stated that the complainant himself lost the requisite documents, required for the registration of the vehicle. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.                     The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 

5.                     After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record, the ld. District Forum disposed of the complaint, in the manner, as stated above.

6.                     Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant/ complainant, as to whether, the appeal should be admitted for regular hearing or not, and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 

8.                     As per the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant, the respondents had not provided the final invoice, bill, Form No.22 and sale letter, in original, to the complainant, which were required for the registration of the vehicle and, due to that reason, the vehicle could not be got registered. It was further contended that it was a false allegation that the original documents had been lost by the complainant, whereas, the same were never delivered to him. The stand of the respondents/opposite parties, before the ld. District Forum, was that all the original documents (Annexure R-1 to R-6), pertaining to the sale of the car, were handed over to the complainant, which were duly received by him at the time of delivery of the car on 20.7.2011 itself.  From the perusal of these documents (Annexure R-1 to R-6) it is amply clear that all the documents were handed over to the complainant at the time of delivery of the car itself and he acknowledged the receipt thereof by affixing his signatures.   Annexure R-2 is a copy of the ‘New Car Delivery Check List’ which, apart from other things,  shows that the column against Sr. No.29 i.e. registration documents is tick (√) marked, which means that the document required for the registration of vehicle were received by the complainant.   Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the aforementioned documents, were duly delivered, to the complainant by the opposite parties and the plea of the appellant regarding the non-delivery of the same is meritless and deserves to be rejected. 

9.                     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order, passed by the ld. District Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and, therefore, there is no scope for any interference.

10.                  We, therefore, do not find any merit,  in this appeal,  to admit it, for regular hearing.  The same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.  The parties are left to bear their own costs.

                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

26.03.2012

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER