Sri Sudhakar Senapothi    - Member.       

Complainant Pratiswari Patra has filed this case u/s 12 of CP Act-1986 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party for not providing her with the Registration Certificate of the Scooty (Activa 3G) in spite of receipt of the cost of the registration from her father and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Party to provide her with the Registration Certificate and to pay cost and compensation of Rs. 6,000/-.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the father of the complainant purchased one Activa 3G from the Opposite Party on 22.11.2016 at an consideration of Rs. 64,000/- which includes the cost of the Motor Cycle Scooty/cost of registration and cost of insurance. The OP received the consideration with the assurance to register the vehicle before RTO, Nuapada and provide the registration certificate to her father. In the month of January-2017, the copy of the insurance certificate was provided to the purchaser wherein the insured value was stated to be Rs. 51,113/-. But, the Opposite Party did not provide the registration certificate for a period of more than 3 years and went on deffering dates after dates and finally on 23.06.2023 denied to deliver the registration certificate for which finding no other alternative, she has filed this case before this Commission being duly authorized by her father for the reliefs as discussed above.

2.           After receipt of notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed his written statement. In his written statement, the OP denied the fact that he has not sold the Honda Activa to the father of the complainant but has purchased it from Ashirbad Motors, Baragarh and he has not demanded any amount from the father of the complainant. but, he has delivered the vehicle to the farther of the complainant, as he is the stockiest and authorized service centre of Honda Motors. He challenged the jurisdiction of the Forum as the complainant is not the owner/purchaser of the vehicle and he is not the seller of the vehicle and the case is hit by the non-joinder of the necessary parties. He has obtained the copy of the Adhar Card, copy of retail invoice, copy of Form No. 22 and copy of Tax invoice of the vehicle and prays for dismissal of the case with costs.

3.           The complainant in support of her case has filed the copy of the insurance certificate issued by ICICI, Lombard and the letter of authority given by Satyadev Patra and her evidence in shape of affidavit. On the other hand, the Opposite Party has filed the photo copy of Adhar Card of the purchaser of the vehicle, photocopy of invoice letter, photo copy of Form No. 2, and photocopy of the tax invoice.

4.           The prime question relating to the case is whether the Opposite Party has sold the Scooty to the complainant’s father or not?

          It is specifically pleaded in Para-2 of the complaint petition that the Opposite Party demanded Rs. 64000/- from the father of the complainant which includes the sale price of the vehicle, cost of registration and insurance of the said vehicle. It is further pleaded in Para-3 that her father had received the insurance certificate from Insurance Company on 08.12.2016 in which the value of the Activa-3G has been mentioned as Rs. 51,113/-. This fact has not been specifically denied by the Opposite Party. Rather, he has admitted the fact that he is the stockiest and authorized sale and service centre and has delivered Honda Activa 3G to the father of the complainant. When the OP has clearly admitted that he is the stockiest of the vehicles, it is very much clear from his own statement that he does not have the necessary authority and trade license to sale or keep stock of new vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. It is very much clear from the conduct of Opposite Party that he is the stockiest having no trade certificate and tax registration etc. and therefore, he is doing backdoor business in connivances with Ashirbad Motors, Baragarh. The affidavit filed by the complainant is corroborated by the affidavit of her father which stands uncontroverted and unchallenged and unrebutted. So, it is very much clear from the evidence led by the complainant and from the admission of the Opposite Party that he has sold the vehicle (Activa 3G) in a backdoor manner which is not permissible under law to the complainant’s father.

5.           The next question is whether the Opposite Party has received the consideration from the father of the complainant for registering the vehicle?

It is stated by the complainant that her father has paid a sum of Rs. 64,000/- to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has not specifically denied that he has not received the amount from the complainant. In the absence of specific denial to that affect, it is deemed that he has received the money from the father of the complainant.

6.           It is clear from the evidence led by the complainant that the Opposite Party has received the amount from the complainant’s father. It is seen from the documents filed by the Opposite Party that the cost of the vehicle is Rs. 53,803/- inclusive of all taxes and from receipt granted by the Odisha Motor Vehicle Department a sum of Rs. 2848/- has been paid towards the cost of registration and the receipt has been generated by Ashirbad motors, Baragarh. So, it is very much clear from the receipt that the amount is paid to the Opposite Party for registration of the vehicle and he has done through someone else as he lacks legal authority to generate the receipt. So, there is no doubt about the fact that the money has been received by the Opposite Party from the customer to register the Activa 3G.

7.           It is evident from the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs that the OP has sold the vehicle, received the cost of registration and has collected a sum of Rs. 7,349/- over and above the actual cost of the Activa 3G inclusive of cost of registration and cost of insurance.

8.           So, the allegation of the complainant is well proved from the facts and circumstance of the case that the OP has received the cost of registration and insurance from her father but did not provided the registration certificate to the purchaser. So, a case of deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice is made out against the Opposite Party and he is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by her and hence the order

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. The OP is made liable for causing deficiency in service, practicing the unfair trade practice and harassment to the complainant. The OP is directed to provide the certificate of registration to the complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which he will be liable to pay penalty of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only daily from the date of receipt of order till its compliance. The OP is further directed to refund a sum of Rs.7360/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty) only to the customer which he has collected over and above the cost of the Active-3G, fee for registration and cost of insurance. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30, 000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation for causing deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to the complainant. The order as to cost and compensation, refund of the excess amount shall be complied within 30 days failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till its compliance.