Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/102/2016

Jaswinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harmony Honda Joshi Autolinks Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kulwinder Singh

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/102/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	12/02/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	21/12/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Jaswinder Pal Singh S/o Mohinder Singh Dhariwal, Resident of House No. 114, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant.

 

Versus

 

 

1. Harmony Honda Joshi Autolinks Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.389, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula, Haryana, through its Authorized Signatory.

 

(2)  Registering Authority, D.C. Office, Sector 1, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

(3)  Transport Commissioner, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Second Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

 

(4)  Registering Authority, U.T. Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

(5)  Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR        PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. RAVINDER SINGH      MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties No.1 & 5	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Ex-parte.
For Opposite Party No.3.	:	None
For Opposite Party No.4.	:	Sh. Ashok Gautam, Govt. Pleader along with Sh. Devender Singh Rawat, Data Entry Operator, RLA, Chandigarh.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that the Complainant booked a Honda City Car with Opposite Party No.5, delivery whereof was given by Opposite Party No.1 on 25.05.2015. The Opposite Party No.1 also issued Temporary Registration Certificate HR-99 VW (Temp) 5329, which was valid upto 24.06.2015. It has been averred that the Complainant required special number i.e. 0707 to his vehicle, therefore, he applied to the Opposite Party No.4, along with all the necessary documents and a sum of Rs.5,000/- for getting the aforesaid number. However, he was told that the earlier policy of submitting an application had been done away with and now he would have to participate in the auction of fancy numbers which would be held after about 2-3 months when the next series CH01 BD would be launched. In these set of circumstances, which were beyond his control, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 who earlier issued the temporary registration certificate, to renew it for further two months on payment of the required charges as per rules, but to no success. He also took up the matter with RLA, U.T. Chandigarh, but the same was in vain. Ultimately, Opposite Party No.4 launched the new series i.e. CH01 BD in August 2015 and the auction of the special numbers was held on 02.08.2015. The Complainant purchased Regn. No. CH01 BD 0707 in the open auction and deposited the amount for the registration of vehicle on 06.08.2015, when the new series was launched. It has been alleged that due to the aforesaid callous attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant could not use/drive the vehicle from 25.06.2015 to 06.08.2015 and had to incur an amount of Rs.30,000/- for hiring an alternate car for his use. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Pursuant to notice, Opposite Parties No.1 & 5 appeared, through Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate, and made a statement, on 17.05.2016 that they do not want to file reply and evidence in this Complaint.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 resisted the complaint by filing its written statement, inter alia, pleading that it appointed Opposite Party No.1 as temporary registering authority vide order dated 23.7.2015 with power to register the new vehicles. It has been asserted that the Complainant himself remained negligent to get registered the vehicle within stipulated period i.e. one month as per the provisions of Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The validity of Temporary Registration was one month and the renewal was permissible only in limited circumstances as provided to the proviso of Section 43[2] of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. No unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of the Complainant was pleaded or explained in the Complaint. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      Opposite Party No.4 filed its reply, pleading that the Complainant had purchased the vehicle and the Temporary Registration Certificate was issued by the Authority under the Government of Haryana. The Complainant had applied for extension of such Temporary Registration Certificate to the Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh without even intimating the Authority at Chandigarh that he had purchased the vehicle from Haryana and the Temporary Registration Certificate was issued by the Authority authorized by the Government of Haryana. It has been asserted that since the Temporary Registration Certificate was issued by the Government of Haryana, therefore, the extension of such certificate, if any, was required to be issued by such authority and not by the other authority i.e. Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh. The Complainant has misread and misconstrued the provision of Motor Vehicle Act. As per Section 43[2] of Motor Vehicle Act, the Temporary Registration Certificate shall not be renewable. However, under the proviso attached thereto, the Registering and Licensing Authority may allow the extension under two circumstances. However, since the reasoning provided by the Complainant was not satisfactory, therefore, the application for extension of the certificate was rejected by the concerned authority. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

6.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

7.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

8.      We have heard Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the Complainant, Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 5 and Sh. Ashok Gautam, Government Pleader for Opposite Party No.4, and have also perused the record.

 

9.      The sole grouse of the complainant is that due to delayed action on the part of OPs, he could not drive his car for a few months. The complainant applied for a temporary number to OP-1 and the same was given on 25.5.2015 which was valid for a period of one month. Subsequently, the complainant wanted to take a special number i.e. 0707 for his vehicle for which he made an application to OP-4 alongwith all necessary documents and a fee of Rs.5,000/- for getting the aforesaid number, but, he was told by OP-4 that the policy of submitting such an application had been done away with and that he would have to participate in the auction of the fancy numbers likely to be held after about 2-3 months for the next series i.e. CH01-BD. In these circumstances, which were entirely beyond the control of the complainant, he requested the OP No.1 vide his     e-mail dated 11.07.2015 annexed at Pg. No.19 of the paper book, to extend his Temporary Number HR-99 VW (Temp) 5329 for further two months, but, this was not taken care of by it. Ultimately, the complainant got the special number CH01-BD-0707 after about three months i.e. on 2.8.2015. During this period, the complainant suffered financial loss as he was not able to drive the vehicle without the proper registration number. The complainant kept approaching the OPs, but, he could not succeed. 

 

10.      From the above, it is clear that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 in having failed to consider the matter in right perspective for the extension of the temporary number of the vehicle Honda City which is permissible as per Order No.30356/RC dated CHD 23.07.2015 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana read with Section 43 (2) provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

 

11.      The Government of Haryana vide order dated 03.07.2015 ibid already appointed Harmony Honda Joshi Autolinks Pvt. Ltd. for issue of temporary registration numbers of vehicles Honda City being sold by them from their Showroom (Annexure R-1). The OP No.1 was though duty bound to take needful action for extension of validity of the temporary registration number, but in vain, which resulted into miscarriage of justice in the present matter. 

 

12.      In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 only and which is allowed with the following directions: -

i]   The OP-1 shall provide one free service for the vehicle in question Honda City Registration No. CH-01-BD-0707 of the Complainant, which he had missed due to non-driving the vehicle with effect from 25.06.2015 to 06.08.2015.

 

ii]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

iii] To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards costs of litigation.

 

13.      The OP-1 shall comply with the directions within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr. No. (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr. No.(i) & (iii) above.

 

14.      The consumer complaint qua the remaining OPs stands dismissed with no order as to costs. 

 

15.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21^st December, 2016                                                           

Sd/-        

(SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                     Sd/-          

(RAVINDER SINGH)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”