Gurmit Singh age 30 years s/o Gurcharan Singh r/o vill Bassi Daud Khan Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.


Complainant


vs.



Cargo Motors Pvt.Ltd. (Tata Motor Limited) near Ambey Vally, Bharwain Road, Hoshiarpur through its partner/Proprietor/Incharge.

Opposite party

1.

The complainant namely Gurmit Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Tata Indigo car from the OP on 24.12.2008 on payment of Rs. 4,29.786/-. It is the case of the complainant that he paid Rs. 750/- to the OP for temporary RC. The OP asked the complainant to collect the temporary RC within two days. That the complainant approached the OP, number of times to provide temporary RC but of no consequences . It is the allegation of the complainant that without temporary RC, he was unable to ply the vehicle, hence this complaint.
2.

OP filed the reply. Preliminary objections vis a vis maintainability, estoppel , complainant is not the consumer and suppression of material facts were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. However, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the car in question from the replying OP. It is replied that at the time of purchasing the vehicle, it was made clear to the complainant that temporary RC would be supplied as and when received from the Registration Authority. The temporary RC was issued by the Registration Authority valid from 13.1.2009 to 12.2.2009 and the complainant was informed accordingly. The OP went to the complainant to deliver the temporary RC but he refused to accept it.
3.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1,C-3,C-4 , retail invoice Mark C-2, affidavit of Mohinder Singh Ex. C-5, bill dated 24.12.2008 Mark C-6, rough bill Mark C-7 and receipts Mark C-8 to Mark C-14 and closed the evidence.
4.

In rebuttal, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of I.D.Sharma Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
5.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
6.

The perusal of the order dated 29.4.2009 makes it clear that the temporary RC of the vehicle in question had been handed over to the learned counsel for the complainant in the court, therefore, it can legitimately be concluded that the grouse of the complainant has been well met . Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that since the temporary RC of the vehicle has been delivered at a belated stage, therefore, the complainant is entitled for damages/ compensation.
7.

Admittedly, the temporary RC has been delivered by the OP to the complainant after filing of the complaint, therefore, the complainant is certainly entitled for damages and litigation costs, which are assessed at Rs.2500/- to be paid by the OP to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of the order.