Punjab

Sangrur

CC/249/2018

Leela Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Venus Auto Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Goyal

03 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                            

                                                Complaint No.  249

                                                Instituted on:    22.05.2018

                                                Decided on:       03.08.2018

 

Leela Singh son of Ruldu Singh R/O Near Gurudwara Sahib, Village Dhindsa, Tehsil Moonak,  District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

 

                                        Versus

 

Venus Auto Mobiles, Opposite Gurudwara Mehal Mubarak, Dhuri Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.

For opposite party    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Leela Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP by purchasing one motor cycle Hero Splendor+ from the OP on 18.10.2017 and paid an amount of Rs.55,500/- including charges for insurance and for issuance of registration certificate.  Further case of the complainant is that the RC of the above motorcycle was delivered to the complainant on 2.11.2017 and after scrutiny the complainant found that name of the father of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned as Rulda Singh instead of Ruldu Singh, which fact was brought to the notice of the OP, who kept the RC and advised the complainant to collect after 10-15 days, but the same was not delivered to the complainant despite his best efforts till the filing of the present complaint. Lastly, the complainant approached the OP to get the RC on 17.5.2018, but of no avail.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to deliver the RC duly corrected and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has not arrayed the District Transport Officer as a party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle in question and further averred that as per the Government policy no vehicle can be delivered to purchaser without applying for its registration with DTO concerned and without issuing any registration number.  It is further averred that the complainant handed over the RC to the OP on 30.11.2017 and on 2.12.2017 the OP gave in writing to the complainant about the RC.  It is further averred that computers in the office of the DTO remained out of work for a long time (Vahan 3 software was working and it was upgraded to Vahan 4 software due to which pending jobs in Vahan 3 software could not be done for three/four months) due to which correction in the name of spelling of father’s name of the complainant could not be made and as soon as the OP received the original RC after correction a letter dated 13.6.2018 was written to the complainant to get the RC.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is not in dispute that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle in question on 18.10.2017 and paid an amount of Rs.55,500/- to the OP including cost of insurance and registration certificate.  It is further not in dispute that the name of the father of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned in the registration certificate as Rulda Singh instead of Ruldu Singh.  It is further admitted by the OP that the complainant handed over the registration certificate to the OP on 30.11.2017 and the OP issued receipt dated 2.12.2017 to the complainant, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3, which clearly reveals that the OP received the registration certificate from the complainant for correction of name of the father of the complainant.   The grievance of the complainant is that the registration certificate after correction was issued to the complainant by the OP on 6.7.2018, as is evident from the statement of the learned counsel for the complainant dated 6.7.2018 on record.  The fact remains that the registration certificate was issued to the complainant after a long period of about seven months and due to which the complainant remained deprived from the use the vehicle for such a long period of about seven months and further suffered mental tension agony and harassment due to non delivery of the registration certificate of the vehicle by the OP.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the correction in the registration certificate could not be effected due to non working of the computers as there was some change in the software from Vahan 3 to Vahan 4 by the District Transport Office, Sangrur.  But, no such evidence has been produced by the OP to show that there was any change in the software of the District Transport Office, Sangrur.  There is no explanation from the side of the OP that why such evidence has not been produced on the record.  In the circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of negligence on the part of the OP by not delivering the corrected registration certificate to the complainant immediately.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony as well as for harassment. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

 

                                Pronounced.

                                August 3, 2018.

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                            Presiding Member

 

                                 

 

                                                         (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                Member