Delhi

North East

CC/373/2022

Deepanshu Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aarohi Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 373/22

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Deepanshu Aggarwal R/o 67B DDA Flats, Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, North East Delhi, Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Aarohi Automobiles (Situated at Ground Floor) Plot No. 11/7, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana 121003     Tvs Motors Sector 10, Noida UP 201301	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                  DATE OF ORDER:

20.09.22 07.08.24 05.11.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that Complainant has purchased a scooty vide chassis no. MD626CG58N3A04180 from Opposite Party No.1 on 07.03.22 for a sum of Rs. 85,000/-. The Complainant remitted   Rs. 35,000/- in the bank account of Opposite Party No.1 on 07.02.22 vide IMPS and Rs. 50,000/- cash part payment of scooty for which the receipt dated 07.03.22 of Rs. 75,000/- and remaining Rs. 10,000/- for just registry was provided to him. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 promised to the complainant that they will complete all the process related to scooty including RC and insurance etc. within a week but all promises went in vain. The Complainant visited showroom of Opposite Party No.1 again and again but of no use and Opposite Party No.1 also threatened the Complainant. Thereafter Complainant went to Opposite Party No.2 and explained his problem and Opposite Party No.2 gave false assurance that they will resolve the problem. The Complainant had sent email dated 17.05.22 to Opposite Party No.1 and 2 regarding the registration of the scooty and Opposite Party No. 2 replied “ your enquiry has been registered with complaint NO. TVS_Gr_202217531255 and information has been shared with the concerned team. Our area representative will reach out to understand your concern in details and assist you with a resolution”. But no solution was received. Therefore Complainant again requested to Opposite Party No.1 and 2 dated 24.05.22 regarding the registration but they sent a message that your TVS Motor Grievance ID Gr_202217531255 has been closed, without giving any solution. On 08.09.22 Complainant again requested the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to register the scooty but no solution will come. The Opposite Party failed to give the registration number with other legal documents to Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for the registration of his scooty and             Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service. He also prayed for Rs. 25,000/- towards mental distress and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 01.06.23 and 10.02.23 respectively.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and perused the file including the written arguments filed by the Complainant.
5. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased one scooty from Opposite Party No.1, the seller and also paid registration charges of Rs.10,000/-but the said scooty was not registered by Opposite Party No.1. It is the case of the complainant that Opposite Party No.1 promised to complete all the process related to registration. Opposite Party No.2 gave false assurance to resolve the problem. The Opposite Party failed to give the registration number with other legal documents to Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
6. The complainant has filed copy of tax invoice, copy of temporary registration and copy of complaints and correspondences with Opposite Parties in support of his case.
7. Perusal of the material on record shows that the complainant is resident of Delhi and purchased the vehicle in question from Opposite Party operating from Faridabad. The contention of the complainant is that Opposite Party No.1 did not get the vehicle registered permanently despite the fact that amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 who were authorised dealer of Opposite Party No.2 (manufacturer of vehicle) and despite the promises made by them to arrange the permanent registration.
8. The perusal of the copy of temporary registration relied upon by the complainant shows that the vehicle was to be registered permanently at Faridabad.
9. It is to be noted that the complainant has not mentioned anywhere in the complaint, the place where he wanted to get the vehicle registered. The record shows that he is resident of Delhi and Opposite Party No.1 sold the vehicle and issued tax invoice at the Delhi address. The complainant has not shown any document showing that he applied before any Transport Authority for the registration of the said vehicle. The complainant himself relies upon the temporary RC which clearly mentions the place of registration as Faridabad. The complainant has nowhere controverted this fact which shows that he was well aware of the fact. At the same time, complainant has failed to show that at any point of time, the complainant provided any address to the Opposite Party 1 for registering the vehicle at Faridabad.
10. So far as the accountability of Opposite Party No.1 is concerned, the complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to show that registration charges were paid to Opposite Party No.1 such as receipt issued by concerned Transport Authority and despite registration charges having been paid, registration was not done.
11. In view of the above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that the Complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of services on the part of any of the Opposite Parties, hence, no case is made out for deficiency in services against any of the Opposite Parties.
12. Thus, in view thereof, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. Order announced on 05.11.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President