| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 128 of 22-04-2015 Decided on : 17-02-2017 Ashutosh Chander S/o Sh. Mahesh Chander, R/o B-9, Civil Lines, Bathinda. …....Complainant Versus Deep Honda, Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mansa Road, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor/Managing Director .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate. For the opposite party : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Ashutosh Chander, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M/s. Deep Honda, Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he booked one car namely Honda City 1.5VXMT (1-DTEC) of white colour on 25-7-2014 and made payment of Rs. 51,000/- as booking amount. Then the opposite party called the complainant on 27-9-2014 and demanded payment of the car in question which was duly deposited by him on 27-9-2014. The car was delivered by the opposite party to the complainant on 28-9-2014 with temporary No. PB-03AF-8863. The total amount of Rs. 12,15,793/- was received by the opposite party. Total cost of the car was Rs. 11,24,000/-. The remaining amount was received for registration charges and other expenses. It is alleged that at the time of delivery of car in question, the opposite party told the complainant that permanent registration number of the car will be provided by it as per rules of the government. Thereafter the opposite party provided only temporary registration number to the complainant with a promise that permanent registration number will be provided very soon. Since then, the complainant visited opposite party number of times and requested them to provide permanent registration number alongwith documents but every time, he came bare handed with false excuse made by the opposite party. The temporary registration was valid only for one month from the date of purchase of vehicle. The complainant is unable to drive the vehicle with expired temporary registration number. The complainant is forced to hire vehicle as conveyance to move around. It is further pleaded that complainant has come to know that State Government has increased the registration fee for registration of vehicles after purchase by complainant. This increase of registration fee is not binding on the complainant as he has already paid the requisite registration charges at the time of purchase of vehicle. The delay in providing permanent registration number is only on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not responsible to pay the enhanced registration fee due to deficient and negligent conduct on the part of opposite party. The opposite party is liable for the expenses incurred by the complainant in hiring another vehicle for the transportation. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 2-12-2014 through registered post on 5-12-2014 but to no effect. It is further pleaded that under compelled circumstances, due to non-cooperation and irresponsible behaviour of the opposite party, complainant was forced to deposit an amount of Rs. 19,670/- vide receipt No. 1991 dated 10-1-2015 as demanded by opposite party and under protest alongwith protest letter dated 10-1-2015 which was duly received by opposite party. The payment was made by the complainant to get the registration certificate of the vehicle so that he may be able to drive the vehicle on road as per law of land. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. He has claimed refund of Rs. 19,670/- deposited under protest; Rs. 50,000/- on account of damages for mental tension, agony and botheration suffered by him and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice opposite party put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable. That complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'. As per allegations in the complaint, no services have been hired by him for consideration with respect to availing the registered cover of the vehicle in question. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint. That intricate and contentious questions of facts and law are involved which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence. As such, the same cannot be decided by way of summary jurisdiction. That complainant is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the complaint. He has made a voluntarily deposit of registration charges. He is not entitled to any refund. The complainant has made a false averment about deposit of amount under protest. It is further pleaded that complainant has misstated the facts with malafide intention to seek illegal gains by misuse and abuse of process. The complainant intended to seek a special number i.e. bearing mark No. 2300. On the date of delivery of vehicle, said number was not available in the series so allocated i.e. PB-03AH. Accordingly, the complainant sought number in the new series. The opposite party assured him that said number could be got booked as and when new series would be opened and allocated by District Transport Office, Bathinda. Accordingly, as and when new series had been opened and allocated i.e. PB-03AK, the opposite party put the said number 2300 on hold. In the meantime due to fresh notification of Punjab Government, the Road Tax had been increased w.e.f. 6-10-2014. The complainant was liable to pay enhanced road tax for the purpose of registration. As per procedure and instructions by the Transport Department, Punjab, applicable upto 31-12-2014, firstly the registration mark number is selected and thereafter requisite fee and motor vehicle tax is got deposited online. Since the requisite number 2300 was not available in the running series at the time of delivery of vehicle, the opposite party had to wait for fresh series as per requirement of complainant and the number was put on hold by opposite party but the complainant failed to deposit the additional amount towards road tax despite repeated requests on telephone or otherwise by the opposite party. Since the number being hold in the series PB-03AK was likely to be cancelled due to non-payment of registration fee, the complainant deposited additional vehicle tax on 10-1-2015. Consequent thereto the registration No. PB-03AK-2300 was allotted to the complainant. As such, there is no default on the part of opposite party. Extra motor vehicle tax has been deposited by complainant due to new notification. Hence, complaint is devoid of any merit. The other legal objection is that complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the opposite party has controverted all the material averments and reiterated its version as taken in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his two affidavits dated 10-4-2015 and 4-8-2015 (Ex. C-1 and Ex. C-13), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-2), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-3), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-4), postal receipt (Ex. C-5), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-6), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. C-7), photocopy of Form No. 21 (Ex. C-8), photocopy of payment receipts (Ex.C-9 and Ex. C-10), photocopy of notification (Ex. C-11) and photocopy of order (Ex. C-12). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 1-10-2015 of Anup Mehra (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of e-mail (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of list of registered vehicles (Ex. OP-1/3 to Ex. OP-1/7), photocopy of Form No. 20 (Ex. OP-1/8) and photocopy of provisional registration certificate (Ex. OP-1/9). The complainant has also submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of complainant. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that material facts are not disputed. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 28-9-2014. He paid the entire sale price as well as registration charges and other incidental charges. The opposite party was legally bound to get the registration certificate issued after completing formalities and after making payment of the amount received from the complainant. Admittedly the opposite party has not deposited the charges with the office of District Transport Office within reasonable time. As per opposite party also, the road tax was revised w.e.f. 6-10-2014. The complainant has paid the charges on 28-9-2014. The opposite party was required to deposit the amount shortly thereafter. The opposite party caused unnecessary delay. Therefore, the opposite party was liable to pay the revised tax, if any. The complainant was not at fault. The complainant cannot be burdened for additional enhanced tax. The opposite party has concocted a false story regarding specific number. There is nothing to prove that complainant opted for any specific number. The opposite party has also not placed on record any document to prove payment of charges with the Transport authorities after receiving from the complainant. The complaint cannot be held infructuous only for the reason that complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 19,670/-. The complainant has detailed that this amount was paid under compelled circumstances and under protest. Copy of letter Ex. C-2 also proves that amount was paid by complainant under protest. The case of complainant stands fully proved. The complaint be accepted and complainant be granted relief prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that complaint is abuse of process of law. The complainant has not alleged nor paid any consideration to the opposite party for getting registration certificate. Therefore, the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' as defined under the 'Act'. Even otherwise the case of the complainant is not proved. Of course the complainant has purchased the vehicle on 28-9-2014 and paid the registration charges as applicable at that time but the opposite party was to process at different stages for completion of formalities. Copy of e-mail (Ex. OP-1/2) proves the procedure for registration of vehicle. As per this procedure, firstly dealer was required to enroll the full details of owner, vehicle and its insurance. Thereafter dealer was to be redirected for registration mark allocation and only then the dealer was to confirm the registration mark shown on the screen and make payment of required fee and motor vehicle tax. Ex. OP-1/8 proves that OP's completed the formalities for registration to initiate process for registration of vehicle but thereafter registration mark could'not be confirmed as complainant wanted specific number i.e. 2300. In written reply, the opposite party has detailed that complainant wanted particular number and it was not available at that time. It is pleaded that ultimately complainant got this number. The complainant has no where rebutted this averments of the opposite party in his affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-13. Therefore, in such circumstances this version is to be accepted and no negligence can be attributed on the part of the opposite party. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that even otherwise some reasonable time was required to complete the formalities. The complainant was already issued temporary registration number which was valid for one month. The opposite party was required to complete the formalities within this period of one month. The amount was paid by the complainant on 28-9-2014. The process for registration of vehicle was initiated on 30-9-2015. The State Government has enhanced the road tax w.e.f. 6-10-2014. This shows that road tax was enchanced shortly after purchase of vehicle by complainant. As such, the opposite party cannot be held negligent. The complainant has to pay enhanced road tax and he has paid the same voluntarily. There is nothing to show that this amount was paid by complainant under protest. The letter Ex. C-2 is not signed by any representative of the opposite party. Therefore, it has no evidential value against the opposite party. The complaint is abuse of process of law. It be dismissed with cost. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. Some facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant purchased vehicle in question from the opposite party on 28-9-2014. The complainant has paid the price of the vehicle as well as charges for registration etc., The case of the opposite party is that complainant opted for specific number i.e. 2300 which was not available on that day. As such, process for registration of vehicle could not be completed. The complainant was to wait for new series. The opposite party has detailed this process in written reply as well affidavits of Anup Mehra. It is also detailed by the opposite party that ultimately complainant got 2300 number of his choice. The complainant has nowhere rebutted this averment of the opposite party. It is also not denied that ultimately complainant got 2300 number. Therefore, this could be one of the reason for delay in completion of formalities for registration certificate. The matter can be examined from another angle also. As per complainant, the vehicle was purchased on 28-9-2014. It is not disputed that motor vehicle tax was revised w.e.f 6-10-2014 i.e. within one week after sale of vehicle to the complainant. The opposite party was certainly required some reasonable time to complete the formalities. The procedure for registration of vehicle at dealer's point is detailed in e-mail (Ex. OP-1/2). As per this procedure, firstly dealer is required to enroll the full details of owner, vehicle and its insurance etc. Thereafter dealer is to be redirected for registration mark allocation. The current available numbers are shown to the customers as he/she has privilege to select in between next 25 numbers. Thereafter dealers has to confirm registration number shown on the screen and only then payment of fee and tax is to be done by virtue of internet banking facility of State Bank of India. Therefore, keeping in view this procedure, it can be safely held that some reasonable time is required on the part of dealer also. In these circumstances, no negligence can be attributed on the part of dealer. The road tax has been revised within week after purchase of vehicle by the complainant and before completion of formalities for registration of vehicle. Therefore keeping in view the facts of the entire case, the complainant was certainly required to pay enchanced charges and he has paid the charges which were legally payable by him. Resultantly, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 17-02-2017 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President
(Jarnail Singh )
Member | |
