This is a discussion on Car Zee Center within the Four Wheeler forums, part of the Automobile category; Complaint Case No : 781 of 2009 Date of Institution : 02.06.2009 Date of Decision : 20.11.2009 Manjit Singh son ...
Complaint Case No
781 of 2009
Date of Institution
Date of Decision
Manjit Singh son of Sh. Lakhmir Singh, resident of House No.2149, 2nd Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.
V E R S U S
1. Prithi Pal Singh, Proprietor Car Zee Center, SCO 11-A, 2nd Floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.
2. Sukhwinder Singh @ Tonny, r/o House No.1452/13, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh.
CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT
SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER
DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER
Argued by: Sh. APS Shergill, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Raj S. Jumyal, Adv. for OP-2
PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT
Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a Ford Ikon (2001 model) car bearing registration No.HR 70 9759 from OP-1 (who was dealing in second hand cars) for Rs.1,25,000/-. He was assured by OP-1 that it would be their responsibility to get the car transferred in his name and he was asked to pay Rs.1,20,000/- at the time of deal and the remaining Rs.5,000/- was to be paid upon transfer of car in favour of the complainant. However, after a few days he noticed that the registration certificate of the car was not original but only a laminated photocopy. He immediately contacted the OPs and asked for original documents alongwith no objection certificate as due to want of the same he could not ply the vehicle and the same was lying idle. He even reported the matter to the police on 30.1.2009 where the OP undertook to provide the necessary certificates but none was provided. When he himself enquired the matter from the Registering and Licensing Authority, Haryana he was shocked to learn that the vehicle was under the process of transfer in the name of one Mr. Mahesh Kumar r/o H.No.3390/2, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to cheating, fraud, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. OP-1 did not appear despite due service, hence he was proceeded against exparte.
3. In his written reply OP-2 admitted the factual matrix. It has been pleaded that the complainant very well knew that the car sold was in the name of M/s Finetech Consultants from whom it was first to be transferred in the name of Mahesh Kumar and subsequently in his name. It has been submitted that the ownership of the car was transferred in the name of Sh. Mahesh Kumar with the endeavours of the answering OP and he contacted the complainant many times and even served a legal notice dated 18.6.2009 on the complainant for collecting the RC of the car and the getting the same transferred in his name but he was reluctant to do so. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including written arguments.
6. There is no dispute about it that the OPs sold Car No.HR-70-9759 to the complainant for Rs.1,25,000/- vide Ann.C-2 and on 17.10.2008 Sukhwinder Singh received a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant. The vehicle was registered in the name of M/s Finetech Consultants regarding which the registration certificate, copy of which is Annexure C-1, was supplied. The Insurance Policy (Annexure C-4) was also in the name of M/s Finetech Consultants. It is argued by the ld.Counsel for the complainant that he presumed that Sukhwinder Singh was either the owner or a partner in the said Firm and was, therefore, competent to sell the same. It is, however, proved that Sukhwinder Singh had no concern with the said Firm and was not competent to sell the vehicle or to receive the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant. When the vehicle was not transferred in favour of the complainant and he came to know that instead of transferring the vehicle in his favour the OPs have transferred it in favour of one Mahesh Kumar, he filed complaints to the police, copies of which are Annexures C-5 & C-6. It is admitted by the OPs that they were summoned by the Police where, according to them, some compromise was effected but no such copy of the compromise has been placed on the file. The OP No.2 rather submitted a photocopy of his own statement made before the Police, which is Ann.OP-2/A in which it was admitted that Mahesh Kumar was out of station and when he came, the vehicle would be got transferred. The fact of the matter, however, is that even thereafter the vehicle has not been got transferred in favour of the complainant, though the OPs had undertaken to transfer the vehicle in his favour as is mentioned in Para No.3 & 5 of the complaint. This itself amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
7. It is mentioned by the OPs that the complainant knew that the vehicle was registered in the name of M/s Finetech Consultants and therefore, he could not accuse the OPs of any deficiency in service. It is also contended that the complainant was told by them that the vehicle would be first transferred in favour of Mahesh Kumar and thereafter in favour of the complainant. This assertion is totally falsified from the two documents Annexure C-2 & C-3 prepared at the time of the sale of the vehicle. There is no mention if the vehicle would be first transferred in the name of Mahesh Kumar nor was it necessary to do so because Mahesh Kumar appears to be nobody in the transaction. We find sufficient merit in the contention of the complainant that Mahesh Kumar was introduced by the OPs subsequently to digest the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- received from the complainant so that the vehicle is not transferred in his favour on the ground that there was no agreement between the complainant and Mahesh Kumar for its sale. The OPs instead of transferring the vehicle from M/s Finetech Consultants to the complainant have not only committed breach of trust and cheating but had been utterly deficient in rendering proper service for which they had received an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant. There was, therefore, no agreement between the parties nor was this fact told by the OPs to the complainant that the vehicle would be first transferred to Mahesh Kumar.
8. The previous owner of the vehicle was M/s Finetech Consultants. None of the OPs have produced any evidence to suggest if they were, in any manner, connected with the said Firm or were competent to sell the vehicle. Now the vehicle stands in favour of Mahesh Kumar, who has never agreed to sell the vehicle to the complainant nor has he so far transferred the vehicle in the name of the complainant. It is, therefore, clear that the OPs obtained the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- from the complainant under the false pretext of transferring the vehicle in his favour and have rendered themselves guilty of deficiency in service on that account. They have no right to retain the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- which was agreed to be the sale price of the vehicle not owned by any of them.
9. OP-2 in para 7 of the reply has mentioned that he contacted the complainant many times and even sent a legal notice dated 18.6.2009 for collecting the RC of the car and for getting the same transferred in his name but the complainant was reluctant to do the same for the reasons best known to him. He has attached Annexure OP-2/B, a copy of the notice dated 18.6.2009 allegedly sent by him through his counsel to the complainant. The complainant has denied having received any such notice. The OP has mentioned that this notice was sent through registered AD but neither any postal receipt nor the acknowledgement of the registered letter having been delivered to the complainant has been produced. It appears that these documents have been withheld by the OP in order to conceal the true facts. May be no such notice was issued or this notice was introduced subsequently in back date simply to show their bonafides in this complaint. It may be mentioned that the complaint was filed before this Forum on 2.6.2009 and was taken up on 9.6.2009 when it was admitted for regular hearing and notice was issued to the OP for 20.7.2009. It is clear that after the OPs came to know of the filing of the complaint and issuance of notice by this Forum, they manufactured this notice to show that they had asked the complainant to collect the RC. Otherwise, during this period of 8 months, the OPs never sent any notice and never asked the complainant to collect the RC even though the complainant had been requesting them and ultimately filed complaint before the police in this respect. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the issuance of notice (Annexure OP-2/B) is of no avail to bail out the OPs out of this mess.
10. Even if the OP-2 asked the complainant to collect the RC it was of no use to him. The OP has not produced any form and affidavits which are required to be filled up and signed/sworn under the rules for the transfer of the vehicle from one person to another. The mere handing over of the RC could not be considered as the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the complainant. Even during the trial of the case, the OP did not produce any such document to suggest if they ever intended to transfer the vehicle in favour of the complainant; rather they got it transferred to one Mahesh Kumar instead of transferring it in favour of the complainant. The NOC which is required for such transfers does not appear to have been obtained by the OP so far. The OP have been grossly negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant.
11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum since 17.10.2008 till the amount is received along with Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Since the OPs have caused mental & physical harassment to the complainant by first not transferring the vehicle in his favour and secondly transferring it in the name of one Mahesh Kumar due to which he had to run to the Police and Registration Authorities and thereafter approach this Forums, therefore, the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing him mental & physical harassment.
12. The above amount be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OPs would be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount since the date of filing the complaint i.e. 2.6.2009 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.
13. The complainant would return the vehicle to the OPs after receipt of aforesaid payment from the OPs.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
Click here to Become Premium Member