DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 03 of 5-01-2015

Decided on : 14-12-2016

Jagdish Kumar aged about 35 years, R/o H. No. 16833-A, Street No. 5/1, Basant Vihar, Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

Deep Honda, Deep Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mansa Road, Near Mahindra Showroom, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner

District Transport Office, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

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. Naveen Goyal, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate for OP No. 1

OP No. 2 exparte.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

Jagdish Kumar, 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 Deep Honda and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of Bathinda. He purchased one Amaze (D) SMT car for Rs. 6,78,000/- from opposite party No. 1 vide Retail Invoice No. 205 dated 25-9-2014 after availing loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from State Bank of India. The opposite party No. 1 charged Rs. 44,000/- extra on account of fee for getting issued permanent registration certificate from opposite party No. 2 and other charges. This fee was to be deposited with authorized dealer of the vehicle from where customer purchases the vehicle. It is necessary and duty of all the authorized dealers of the vehicle to charge/collect the requisite permanent registration certificate fee from every customer at the time of selling vehicle. In this way, the opposite party No. 1 charged a total sum of Rs. 7,22,000/- from the complainant and issued receipt No. 1073 dated 8-9-2014 of Rs. 21,000/-, Receipt No. 1149 dated 24-9-2014 of Rs. 1,01,100/- and Receipt No. 1169 dated 25-9-2014 of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The opposite party No. 1 allotted Temporary Registration Certificate No. PB-03AF(T)-8857 to the vehicle of the complainant.

It is pleaded that after receiving amount of Rs. 7,22,000/-, opposite party No. 1 assured and asked the complainant to collect Permanent Registration Certificate for the said vehicle from them after 20/21 days as validity of Temporary registration number is only for one month. The complainant also got his vehicle insured from New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vide Cover Note No. CHD/2013/583513 effective from 25-9-2014 to 24-9-2015 after paying Rs. 14,954/- with IDV Rs. 6,78,000/-.

It is alleged that as per assurance given by opposite party No. 1, complainant approached it after about 20-21 days and requested to deliver permanent registration certificate of said vehicle but instead of delivering permanent registration certificate, opposite party No. 1 asked the complainant to pay more money for issuance of same and conveyed that only then, he will be issued permanent registration certificate. This demand was raised on the pretext that government has increased registration fee for the vehicle. The complainant has already paid requisite fee as per demand of opposite party No. 1. No amount was due against him on that day. The opposite party No. 1 cannot raise any further demand. It was its duty to deposit the registration fee paid by the complainant to the office of District Transport Office on the same day, but the opposite party No. 1 was negligent in depositing it with opposite party No. 2. The complainant made repeated requests to opposite party No. 1 not to raise any more demand of money from him, but all in vain. Thereafter complainant also visited office of opposite party No. 2 with the request to deliver registration certificate for the said vehicle but it also refused for the same.

It is also pleaded that due to non issuance of permanent registration certificate, the complainant is unable to ply his vehicle on road and the same is lying parked in his house.

On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He has claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and botheration etc.; Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses in addition to direction to the opposite parties to issue permanent registration in his name. Hence, this complaint.

Notice of the complaint was ordered to be issued to opposite party No. 1 only. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. That complainant is himself wrong doer and is estopped by his conduct and acquiescence from filing the complaint. There has been deliberate delay on the part of complainant in complying with the requisite formalities for applying registration certificate of vehicle. As such, complainant cannot seek benefit of his own wrong and deliberate act. That the complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'. No services have been hired by the complainant for consideration with respect to availing the registered cover of vehicle in question. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint. That intricate and contentious question of fact and law are involved in the complaint which require extrinsic oral and voluminous documentary evidence. The matter cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. That complainant has mis-stated true facts before this Forum with malafide intention to conceal factual matrix that had incepted amongst the parties.

As per opposite party on the date of delivery of vehicle on 25-9-2014, the complainant had taken vehicle in a celebration mode to comply with formalities for registration certificate at a later stage. The complainant ought to choose registration number of the vehicle and represented that he would approach back soon for selection of registration number as well as for inspection of vehicle as tracing of engine number and chassis number is to be submitted to the DTO for the purpose of registration. It is requisite for the purpose of registration. Despite repeated calls, the complainant failed to turn up or bring the vehicle for the purpose of selection of registration number and for tracing engine number and chassis number. The requisite details to be punched on line with respect to vehicle had been made by opposite party on 28-9-2014. Thereafter registration fee and tracing of the vehicle is to be simultaneously deposited but the same could not be completed as the complainant has failed to turn up. As such, it is the complainant himself who has defaulted in complying with the requisite formalities for the purpose of registration certificate. Moreover, the act of the opposite party is devoid of any consideration. The complaint deserves dismissal. That the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is liable to be dismissed with special costs.

On merits, the opposite party controverted all the material averments. It is reiterated that complainant has failed to comply with the conditions for the purpose of registration of the vehicle. It is repudiated that opposite party charged Rs. 44,000/- for getting permanent registration certificate. However, it is pleaded that a sum of Rs. 39,000/- had been deposited by complainant for registration of vehicle.

It is also mentioned that availing of registration certificate through dealer is the choice of the customer as he can also get the vehicle registered directly from registering office. The present allegations of the complainant are repudiated. It is admitted that a sum of Rs. 7,22,000/- has been deposited by the complainant. It is reiterated that only Rs. 39,000/- were deposited for the registration of the vehicle. It is denied that opposite party had assured the complainant to collect registration certificate after 20/21 days. The opposite party has also reiterated its stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above.

It is also pleaded that as per notification of State Government, the registration charges have been increased with effect from 6-10-2014 by 2%. These charges are payable by the complainant. There is no liability of the opposite party. The complainant cannot escape from the payment of the increased registration charges by way of such allegations especially when there has been delay and default on the part of complainant himself.

It is also pleaded that complainant has misrepresented with respect to deposit of registration fee. The deposit of registration fee is made on the selection of the registration number and simultaneously by submission of the tracing of engine and chassis number of the vehicle. The complainant had defaulted and delayed the same. He is estopped to raise allegation. There is no negligence on the part of the complainant. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 5-1-2015 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of price list (Ex. C-2), photocopy of payment receipts (Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5), photocopy of invoice (Ex. C-6), photocopy of retail invoice dated 25-9-2014 (Ex. C-7), photocopy of temporary certificate of registration (Ex. C-8) and photocopy of Insurance cover note (Ex. C-9).

The complainant has also examined Mr. Sanjeev Kumar from the office of DTO, Bathinda and he has produced the record including Application for Registration of a Motor Vehicle (Ex. C-10).

In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 7-6-2016 of Anoop Mehra (Ex. OP-1/1) and copy of letter/conformation of process of RC before 1-1-2015 (Ex. OP-1/2) and closed the evidence.

It is also relevant to mention that during pendency of complaint, the opposite party produced registration certificate in the name of complainant which has been accepted by him vide separate statement.

The learned counsel for 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 submitted that material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant purchased vehicle from opposite party and paid requisite fee for registration of the vehicle. The complainant has pleaded that he paid Rs. 44,000/- for this purpose and opposite party has admitted receipt of Rs. 39,000/-. It is not disputed that complainant paid fee of registration which was payable on the date of purchase of vehicle. The opposite party was required to get issued registration certificate in the name of complainant but it unnecessarily delayed in delivering the registration certificate. The plea of the opposite party is that complainant failed to do the needful which caused delay in issuance of certificate. The registration certificate has been procured by the OP's but there is nothing to show that any formality was got completed from the complainant after receipt of requisite charges. The vehicle was purchased on 25-9-2014. The registration charges were also paid on the same day. If there is increase in registration charges i.e. w.e.f. 6-10-2014, the opposite party was expected to deposit the fee alongwith other documents within reasonable time after sale of vehicle. The opposite party has caused unnecessary delay in doing their duty. As such, the complainant is not to be held liable for the lapse on the part of the opposite party and for payment of increased charges. Of course the opposite party has delivered registration certificate during pendency of complaint. They have caused unnecessary delay in getting the needful done. It amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation for this delay.

On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that complainant has not received any consideration. Therefore, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer under the 'Act'. Moreover, the complainant was to deposit the charges which were payable for registration of the vehicle. The State Government vide notification increased the registration charges by 2% w.e.f. 6-10-2014. The complainant was required to pay this difference. The complainant was also required to do the needful for getting issued registration certificate. The complainant was at fault in both counts. Therefore, the opposite party is not liable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

Undisputed facts are that complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite party on 25-9-2014. In addition to price of the vehicle, the complainant also paid registration charges.Although as per complainant, he had paid Rs. 44,000/- for this purpose and opposite party acknowledged receipt of Rs. 39,000/- as registration charges. In order to solve the controversy, it is immaterial whether complainant paid Rs. 44,000/- or Rs. 39,000/- as admitted fact is that the complainant has paid the registration charges as were payable on the date of purchase. The opposite party has provided registration certificate to the complainant during pendency of the complaint. There is certainly delay in getting the registration certificate. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant was at fault as he was to provide specific number of his choice. He was also to get traced engine number and chassis number. This contention of the opposite party is not supported with any other material. The opposite party has got issued registration certificate during pendency of complaint. There is nothing to show that the complainant has provided any specific number or tracing of the engine and chassis number. This fact proves that complainant was not to complete these formalities. Of course the registration charges were increased by State Government from 6% to 8% and the opposite party has paid difference but there was delay on the part of opposite party in payment of the charges received from the complainant. The opposite party has caused unnecessary delay in getting permanent registration certificate. Therefore, the complainant is held entitled to some compensation. Keeping in view of the fact that opposite party has already paid 2% of the charges from their pocket as additional/difference of charges, a lenient view is being taken in the matter of compensation.

In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- and cost and compensation to complainant.

The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

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 :

14-12-2016

(M.P.Singh Pahwa )

President

(Jarnail Singh )

Member