Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/100

Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Farid Auto Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Gurjagpal Singh Brar

09 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                     100 of 2018

Date of Institution:          12.06.2018

Date of Decision:              9.04.2019

 

Partap Singh aged about 32 years son of Karaj Singh resident of  Mohkam Colony, Gali No. 2, Guruharsahai Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Farid Auto Sales, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot through its Managing Director, 151203.
2. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, 160017.
3. Registering Authority/SDM, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Gurjagpal Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Sukhjinder Singh, on behalf of OP-1,

                  Sh Rajinder Singh, on behalf of OP-3,

                  OP-2 Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to release Registration Certificate alongwith relevant documents and for further

cc no.-100 of 2018

 

directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a motor cycle make Hero Splendor bearing Chasis No. MBLHAR084 HHH 19990 from OP-1 and OP-1 assured complainant that registration certificate for this vehicle would be prepared from Sri Muktksar Sahib. Complainant paid entire amount for registration certificate, vat, insurance and other expenses to OP-1 and OPs gave temporary registration no. PB-30U-3930 to complainant OP-1 fulfilled all the formalities. Thereafter, complainant made several requests to OPs for issuance of registration certification PB-30U-3930, but despite several requests and service of legal notice, OPs did not issued him registration certificate, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                                                  The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13.06.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                                     OP-1 filed reply wherein asserted that answering OP submitted all the requisite documents to Regional Transport Office,/District Transport Office, Shri Muktsar Sahib complete in all respects for issuance of smart card RC. Fees was deposited online against proper receipt and online Vehicle Registration Number  PB30U-3930 was issued to complainant.

cc no.-100 of 2018

Smart Card RC was in the domain of DTO Office and they also issued the same and are liable to despatch the same to customer through registered post. Answering OP furnished documents to OP-3 two times as they demanded documents again and again. OP-3 delayed the matter and thereafter New Vahan Policy came into existence and DTO Office received Rs.570/- more from them on account of alteration fees, which answering OP had to pay from his own pocket. On receipt of notice from this Forum, DTO office again demanded Adhar Card, Photo etc from complainant on telephone and bills from answering OP and issued smart card RC on 27.07.2018 i.e the same day. It is further submitted that there is no delay on the part of OP, rather OP-3 is liable for causing delay in issuance of RC to complainant. There is no fault and deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.                

5                                                            OP-3 reply wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and it is not maintainable against them. it is averred that process of registration of new vehicle is online process and it is completed by dealer or by buyer concerned from where as person purchased the vehicle and after online application, temporary registration number is allotted by the dealer and after that, dealer has to deposit form no. 21, 22, original bill of the vehicle, ID proof of the purchaser and copy of insurance policy cover note and thereafter, OP-3 verifies the concerned  documents and then registration certificate is issued, but in the present case, no documents have ever been submitted by complainant or dealer OP-1 to them and thus, registration certificate cannot be issued. Complainant is not the consumer of answering OP as no consideration was received by them from complainant. however, on merits, OP-3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and

cc no.-100 of 2018

asserted that they did not issue temporary registration number for said vehicle, rather said number is generated by OP-1, who gave the same to complainant. said number is mechanically generated and is not issued by answering OP. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.                                    

6                                                               Notice containing copy of complaint and other relevant documents was sent to OP-2, but as per office report it has not received back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. It is presumed that OP-2 have sufficient knowledge of complaint, but despite repeated calls, no body appeared in the Forum on date fixed either in person or through counsel on behalf of OP-2 and therefore, vide order dated 1.08.2018, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

7                                            Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                To controvert the allegations of complainant, Sukhjinder Singh representative of OP-1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to OP-1/5 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Sh Rajinder Singh tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex C-3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP-3.

 

cc no.-100 of 2018

9                                                                    From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle from OP-1 and paid all charges to them for obtaining RC. OP-1 gave provision registration number to complainant and averred that permanent registration certificate would be issued by District Transport Office, Sri Muktsar Sahib. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not issued registration certificate in respect of newly purchased vehicle of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. In reply, OP-1 submitted before the Forum that it has done his part of work by filling the fees for registration certificate to OP-3 in time through online system and it is the liability of OP-3 to issue RC to complainant. plea taken by OP-3 is that process of registration of new vehicle is online process and it is completed by dealer or by buyer concerned from where a person purchased the vehicle and after online application, temporary registration number is allotted by the dealer. Then, dealer has to deposit form no. 21, 22, original bill of the vehicle, ID proof of the purchaser and copy of insurance policy cover note and thereafter, OP-3 verifies the concerned  documents and issues registration certificate, but in the present case, neither OP-1 nor complainant supplied requisite documents to them for issuance of RC and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

10                                         To prove his pleadings ld counsel for complainant brought our attention to Ex C-4 that is copy of Provisional Registration Number issued by OP-1 to complainant that proves the fact that on receipt of all requisite charges from complainant, OP-1 gave provision registration certificate to complainant. ExC-2 is copy of legal notice served by complainant to OPs wherein

cc no.-100 of 2018

he made several requests to OPs to issue him registration certificate for his vehicle.  Ex C-5 is copy of insurance policy Ex C-3 is copy of Form No.22 that shows that he completed all formalities for issuance of RC. Through affidavit ExC-1, complainant has tried to narrate his grievance.

11                                     We have thoroughly gone through the file. Admittedly, complainant purchased the motorcycle in question from OP-1 and he paid requisite fees for registration certificate, VAT, Insurance and other relevant charges to OP-1. It is also admitted by OP-1 that provisional registration number PB-30U-3930 was given by OP-1 to complainant. There is no denial by OP-1 that he completed all formalities and submitted requisite documents to DTO Office, Muktsar for obtaining RC for vehicle of complainant. As per OP-1, he completed all the requisite formalities and deposited online government fees for  RC with them, but OP-3 caused delay in issuance of RC to them, but OP-3 alleged that neither complainant nor dealer submitted requisite documents with them for obtaining RC and without completion of requisite formalities and deposit of requisite fees, they are unable to issue RC. It is observed that after filing the complaint by complainant and on receipt of notice issued by this Forum, OP-1 deposited online government fees with OP-3 and also submitted requisite documents with them and thereafter, OP-3 issued the RC to complainant. On receiving the online government fees and requisite documents, OP-3 immediately issued RC to complainant and caused no delay in releasing registration certificate to complainant and thus, there seems to be no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3. It was the duty of OP-1 to deposit online government fees and submit required documents with OP-3 in time. Had OP-1 timely done his part of job i.e  deposited the fee and supplied relevant documents to OP-3 in time, complainant would have no reason to file the present

cc no.-100 of 2018

complaint. Action of OP-1 in not depositing the government fees in time, is inappropriate and it has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him.

12                                                     From the above discussion and keeping in view the documents and evidence placed on record by respective parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 in not depositing online fees and requisite documents with OP-3 in time, due to which complainant had to suffer huge harassment and mental agony. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and stands dismissed against OP-2 and 3. OP-1 is directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.2000/-for litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 9.04.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President