STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 76 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 06.04.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 21.04.2017 |
Harmony Honda Joshi Autolinks Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.389, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula (Haryana), through its authorized Signatory.
……Appellant
V e r s u s
- Jaswinder Pal Singh S/o Mohinder Singh Dhariwal, Resident of House No. 114, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.
- Registering Authority, D.C. Office, Sector 1, Panchkula (Haryana).
- Transport Commissioner, Haryana, 30 Bays Building, Second Floor, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
- Registering Authority, U.T. Sector 17, Chandigarh.
- Joshi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.67, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.
....Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 against order dated 21.12.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 102/2016.
BEFORE: MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
Argued by: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
PER DEV RAJ,MEMBER
Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 has filed this appeal against order dated 21.12.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), partly allowing consumer complaint bearing No.102/2016 filed by respondent No.1/complainant.
2. As per facts on record, the complainant booked a Honda City car with respondent No.5/OP No.5. Delivery of the car was given by the appellant/OP No.1 on 25.5.2015 alongwith temporary registration certificate bearing No.HR-99VW(Temp)5329 valid upto 24.6.2015. It was stated by the complainant that he required special number i.e. 0707 to his vehicle, for which he had applied to respondent No.4/OP No.4 alongwith necessary documents and a sum of Rs.5000/-. He was, however, told that the previous policy of submitting an application had been done away with and he was required to participate in the auction for fancy number which was to be held after 2-3 months when next series CH-01 BD would be launched. It was further stated that under these circumstances, the complainant requested the appellant/OP No.1 to renew the temporary registration number for further two months on payment of required charges, as per rules. The complainant also took up the matter with the Registering Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, but to no effect. The complainant further stated that OP No.4 launched new series i.e. CH01 BD in August,2015 and auction for special numbers was held on 2.8.2015. The complainant purchased registration No.CH01 BD0707 in the open auction and deposited the amount for registration of the vehicle on 6.8.2015, when new series was launched. It was alleged that due to aforesaid callous attitude, on the part of the OPs, the complainant could not use/drive the vehicle from 25.6.2015 to 6.8.2015 and he had to incur an amount of Rs.30,000/- for hiring an alternative car for his use. Alleging deficiency in providing service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Forum.
3. Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 5 put in appearance through their Counsel Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate, who made a statement on 17.5.2016 that they did not want to file reply and evidence.
OP No.3 filed its written statement inter-alia pleading that it appointed OP No.1 as Temporary Registering Authority vide order dated 23.7.2015 with power to register the new vehicles. It was further stated that the complainant was negligent in not getting the vehicle registered within a stipulated period of one month as provided under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. It was further stated that validity of temporary registration certificate was for one month and its renewal was permissible only under limited circumstances as provided under Section 43(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. It was stated that no unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of the complainant were pleaded. All other allegations made in the complaint were denied.
OP No.4 in its reply stated that the complainant had purchased a new vehicle and temporary registration number was issued by the authority under the Government of Haryana. It was stated that since temporary registration number was issued by the Govt. of Haryana, extension of such certificate, if any, was required to be issued by such authority, and not by Registering and Licensing Authority, Chandigarh.
4. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments addressed, partly allowed the complaint, by granting following relief in favour of the complainant;
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
Appellant/OP No.1 was directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the amount mentioned against item No.(ii) above was to entail interest.
5. Feeling aggrieved, OP No.1 has filed the instant appeal. Alongwith appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 40 days (as per office 44 days) in filing the same has been moved.
6. We have heard the counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay, as also in appeal. The ground taken in para-2 of the application for condonation of delay, is just cursory and without any substance. Be that as it may, though there is no justification to condone delay, yet in the interest of justice we proceeded to hear the counsel for the appellant on merits.
7. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant and as such the Forum was not justified in granting relief against it. He further submitted that though temporary registration number was issued by the appellant but it was not competent to extend it for further two months as per provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988.
8. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant chose not to file reply and evidence in the complaint as its Counsel made statement on 17.5.2016 before the Forum to that effect. The Forum, after analyzing the entire record, in para-9 of its order, has rightly held that the appellant/OP No.1 was deficient in providing service. When granting relief, the Forum observed as under ;
“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.
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.
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.
9. The Forum rightly noted that the appellant/OP No.1 was duty bound to do the needful for extension of validity of temporary registration number but its deficiency/inaction resulted into miscarriage of justice. The order passed by the Forum is quite justified. We find that no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
11. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
12. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
21.04.2017
