BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                Consumer Complaint no. 493 of 2019                                                                 

                                                Date of Institution:          26.08.2019

                                                Date of Decision   :     07.03.2022

Rakesh Kumar aged about 54 years son of Sh. Diwan Chand, R/o Village Desu Jodha, Tehsil Mandi Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.

                     ……Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Vipin Motors (Pvt.) Limited, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Manager/ Dealer/ Authorized Person.

2. Vipin Motors (Pvt.) Limited, Sirsa Road, Near Banger Communication, Hisar through its Proprietor/ Manager/ Dealer/ Authorized Person.

                                                                                  ...…Opposite parties.

  Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:       SH.PADAM SINGH THAKUR ……………PRESIDENT

MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER      

SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA……………..MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Parvinder Gaba, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops) on the averments that on 12.04.2018 complainant had purchased Tata Magic eight seater for a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- from op no.1 for personal use. At that time, op no.1 had also charged Rs.15,000/- from complainant as registration charges other than bill payment. That complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- as down payment to op no.1 and availed loan of Rs.3,95,000/- from Indusind Bank for purchase of above said vehicle and vehicle was hypothecated with Indusind Bank Limited. It is further averred that complainant has to pay Rs.12,000/- per month as installment to Indusind Bank and he is regularly paying installments without any default till today. That at the time of delivery of vehicle, op no.1 had given/ issued a temporary No. HR 24T 2018/4236 and assured the complainant that op no.1 would complete the registration procedure before Registration Authority, Sirsa and will give registration certificate to the complainant within 10/15 days and all the necessary documents were provided to op no.1 by the complainant for registration of above said vehicle. That after 15 days, the complainant visited dealership of op no.1 and Manager/ authorized person of op no.1 demanded some more time and made excuses that there is lot of pendency at registration authority and therefore, delay is being caused and thereafter on each and every time on visits of complainant to op no.1, they made excuses on one pretext or the other. It is further averred that for many times, the complainant has demanded Form No.20 alongwith other relevant documents from op no.1 and stated to op no.1 that he himself would get vehicle registered before Registration Authority, but op no.1 did not hand over Form No.20 alongwith other relevant documents to the complainant. That in October, 2018, complainant visited to op no.1 at his showroom/ dealership office with his vehicle and left the vehicle in the office op no.1 due to non registration of same under his name. The complainant without registration certificate was/is unable to use his vehicle. The op no.1 kept his vehicle in his custody and had not given any receipt of the same to the complainant and demanded some more time for registration process. It is further averred that thereafter complainant with his other friends visited the office of op no.1 again and again for registration certificate but they kept on lingering the matter on each and every time but till today op no.1 has not got the vehicle registered in his name and deprived complainant for using his vehicle for such a long period despite the fact that he is paying installments regularly to the bank. That in this manner ops have committed gross deficiency in service towards complainant and thereby have put him to severe losses and have caused unnecessary harassment and mental tension and as such complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and ops are also liable to replace his vehicle with a brand new or to adjust the amount given by complainant in purchasing of a new vehicle or to give back the amount paid by complainant including amount paid to bank with penal interest or to get registered the vehicle from Registration Authority and to pay amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment due to delay of registration. That complainant also served a legal notice upon ops on 5.8.2019 but no reply has been received. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of complaint, no cause of action, suppression of true and material facts etc. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has purchased one Tata Magic 8 seater from ops by his own choice and that too after satisfying himself with the quality and other specifications. The ops are dealer of the company and they have sold the vehicle as per terms and condition of the company which were provided by the company. The answering ops did not charge any single penny for registration of vehicle in question. It is specifically denied that answering op had given any assurance to the complainant that they will get his vehicle registered with concerned registration authority or that they had charged from the complainant for this purpose. It is further submitted that after purchase of vehicle, the duty for registration of vehicle is of complainant/ purchaser and he is responsible for the same. There is no concern of ops with loan amount or its agreement and the terms and conditions of loan agreement and installments is installed between the complainant and concerned finance bank/ institution. The ops have no authority to issue registration certificate. It is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle registered after completing necessary formalities before the concerned registration authority. It is further submitted that at the time of alleged purchasing of vehicle, the answering ops have no authority to issue Form No. 20. All other remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.                The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Anil Dutt son of Sh. Arjun Dass, resident of village Desu Jodha Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Gagandeep son of Sh. Balwinder Singh, resident of village Desu Jodha Ex.CW3/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of statement of account Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4, Ex.C5, again copy of statement of account Ex.C6 and photographs of vehicle as Ex.& to Ex.C10.

4.                The ops have not led any evidence despite availing several opportunities including last opportunity and as such evidence of ops was closed by order. Thereafter, learned counsel for ops suffered a statement that affidavit is already on file which may be read as evidence.  

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for complainant contended that after purchase of vehicle in question from ops on 12.4.2018, the complainant has made several rounds to the ops for getting his vehicle registered with the concerned Registration Authority as ops assured him that they will get registered the vehicle and charged an amount of Rs.15,000/- from complainant. He has further contended that without registration of vehicle, complainant was unable to use the same despite the fact that he had purchased the same through finance for earning his livelihood and ultimately in the month of October, 2018 complainant left the vehicle to the op no.1 and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for ops contended that company has no concern with the registration of the vehicle. The complainant has not placed on file any receipt of the amount of Rs.15,000/- allegedly charged by ops for registration of his vehicle. The complainant has not ever made any complaint against the ops to the police and even complainant has not placed on file any receipt of handing over of his vehicle to the ops. All the requisite documents alongwith Forms were supplied to the complainant well in time and it was the complainant who was to get his vehicle registered with the concerned Registration Authority and when he failed to get his vehicle registered due to his own wrong and mistake, the complainant is leveling false allegations against the ops. The ops have no authority to issue Form No.20 at the time of sale of vehicle. The legal notice was got served upon ops after lapse of one year and four months and in order to hide his negligence, complainant has come to this Commission and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. Admittedly on 12.4.2018, the complainant had purchased vehicle Tata Magic (eight seater) for a sum of Rs.4,95,000/- from op no.1 and said fact is also proved from copy of tax invoice placed on file by complainant as Ex.C1. According to complainant, at the time of purchase of vehicle in question, op no.1 had also charged an amount of Rs.15,000/- for registration charges from complainant in cash other than bill payment. From the copy of statement of account placed on file by complainant Ex.C2, it is evident that complainant got financed the said vehicle from Indusind Bank by obtaining loan amount of Rs.3,96,000/- for purchase of the vehicle in question and paid the said amount to op no.1 and besides this amount, complainant made down payment of Rs.99,000/- to op no.1 in cash and as such vehicle in question is hypothecated with Indusind Bank Limited.

9.                According to the complainant, at the time of purchase/ delivery of vehicle in question, op no.1 had given a temporary No. HR 24 T 2018/ 4236 and assured him that op no.1 would complete the registration procedure before Registration Authority, Sirsa and will give registration certificate to the complainant within 10/15 days and all the necessary documents were also provided to op no.1 for registration of the vehicle. It is specific case of the complainant that the ops have not got registered his vehicle in his name with concerned Registration Authority despite his several requests and visits to the ops and due to which he was/ is not able to use his vehicle and in the month of October, 2018 complainant having no other option left his vehicle in the office of op no.1. Thereafter also, the complainant with his friends visited the office of op no.1 time and again for getting registration certificate of vehicle but every time the ops kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other.

10.              The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. The complainant has also furnished affidavit of his friends namely Anil Dutt and Gagandeep Singh as Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A in which they have fully supported the version of the complainant. The complainant has also placed on file copy of legal notice dated 5.8.2019 which was sent to the ops by the complainant and postal receipts for sending the legal notice to ops have also been placed on file by complainant as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. The said legal notice was sent to the ops by Sh. Parvinder Gaba, Advocate on behalf of complainant on 5.8.2019 i.e. after about one year and four months of purchase of the vehicle in question by complainant and in the said legal notice also, the ops were asked to get registered his vehicle with Registration Authority besides payment of compensation for late registration of vehicle. Further, the complainant has also placed on record photographs of the vehicle in question as Ex.C7 to Ex.C10 and it is evident from photograph Ex.C8 that the vehicle is still having temporary number on its number plate.

11.              Though, the ops have denied each and all allegations of the complainant in their written version and have also taken a specific stand that ops did not charge any single penny for registration of vehicle in question and have also asserted that after purchase of vehicle, the duty for registration of vehicle is of purchaser but the plea of ops seems to be evasive and not tenable because now a days the registration fee is taken from the customer by the seller of the vehicle for getting registered the vehicle and responsibility in this regard is also taken by the dealers of the vehicle for getting registered the vehicles of the customers with the concerned registration authority. The customers also pay money/ registration fee to the dealers and avail facility for getting registration certificate of the vehicle in their names without taking any headache and in order to avoid visiting to the registration authorities. Sh. Anil Dutt and Sh. Gagandeep Singh in their affidavits Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A have categorically stated that they visited the office of op no.1 alongwith complainant time and again for registration certificate of vehicle but op no.1 kept on lingering on the matter on each and every time.

12.              The ops in order to rebut the evidence of complainant have placed on file affidavit of Sh. Yudhister Bansal, though not exhibited but same is repetition of their written statement. The ops have denied charging of registration charges to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and have also denied that vehicle was handed over to them by complainant, but evidence in the shape of affidavits produced by complainant has established on record that ops have charged the amount from him to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and vehicle was not got registered by ops with the concerned registration authority despite repeated requests of complainant. After total harassment and when the vehicle was not being registered, the complainant ultimately handed over the vehicle to the ops and thus ops have failed to discharge their liability as per their undertaking/ agreement at the time of sale to get vehicle registered as it is a general trend in these days that vehicles are being got insured and registered through sale offices. So, certainly there is deficiency in services on the part of ops towards complainant and he has been duped by the ops and complainant has been deprived to use his vehicle frequently for such a long period.

13.              In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and the opposite parties are directed to get the vehicle of complainant registered with the concerned Registering Authority at their own expenses/ costs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of failure of ops to get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority, the ops are directed to make refund of the total amount of Rs.4,95,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 26.8.2019 till actual date of payment. Apart from this, ops are also directed to pay composite compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for harassment and litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced:                   Member                Member                President

Dt. 07.03.2022.                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Commission, Sirsa.