Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/13/2023

ANIL KUMAR SON OF SH.BRAMHU RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

LALLY MOTORS INDIA PVT. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV BHARDWAJ

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	13 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	24.01.2023
Date of Decision	:	28.04.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Sh. Anil Kumar son of Sh. Bramhu Ram resident of House No.1007, Deep Complex, Hallo Majra, Chandigarh.

…Appellant/ Complainant.

VERSUS

1]       M/s Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (Volkswagen Chandigarh), Plot No.9, Indl. Area, Phase I, Chandigarh 160002 through its Managing Director.

2]       Gursewak Singh, Manager M/s Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (Volkswagen Chandigarh), Plot No.9, Indl. Area, Phase I, Chandigarh.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY :-    

 

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER

                   This appeal has been filed by the complainant (appellant  herein) for  setting aside order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), vide which his consumer complaint bearing No.208 of 2021 has been dismissed.

2]                It was the case of the appellant before the District Commission that on 13.01.2021, he approached the opposite parties (respondents herein) for purchase of a vehicle and accordingly, purchased Toyota Altus car, Model 2013 silver colour bearing registration No.HR-26-BY-7848 for total sum of Rs.4,10,000/-.  In addition, the respondents also charged Rs.23,000/- for completing the documentation and other formalities for transfer of the said car in the name of appellant. After taking possession of car, the appellant approached the respondents many times for transfer of the vehicle in his name but of no avail. As per the appellant, due to non completion of documentation, he was facing a lot of harassment, financial constraint as he was not able to drive the vehicle as well as had to pay more amount for fast tag on the toll plaza. It was averred that since the respondents had not performed their part of contract, they are liable to compensate him.  He also issued legal notice to the respondents on 12.3.2021, requesting to get the registration certificate of the vehicle transferred in his name and to pay compensation, but it was not replied.  Alleging aforesaid acts as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed complaint before the District Commission.

3]                On the other hand, the respondents contested the complaint and filed reply wherein they pleaded that the subject car was purchased by the appellant for Rs.4,10,000/- and denied charging of Rs.23,000/- for the completion of formalities of transfer of vehicle. It was pleaded that   “No Objection Certificate”, which was required for the transfer of the car, was obtained by the respondents on 1.4.2021 and the same was despatched to the appellant on 02.04.2021. It was further pleaded that due to novel coronavirus (COVID-19) as the functioning of the Govt. offices at Chandigarh was also restricted by giving online appointments only, the respondents arranged the online appointment of the appellant, though it was not for them to do after handing over of NOC to the appellant. It was further pleaded that it was on the request of the appellant that the respondents requested to deposit Rs.21,000/- which was required to meet the expenses of registration of vehicle and other miscellaneous expenses, which the appellant paid on 25.4.2021. Thereafter the Registering Authority accepted the file and accordingly, the respondents deposited Rs.16,190/- on 01.07.2021 in the office of Registering Authority, Chandigarh for the purpose of re-registration of the car, which included onetime road tax of Rs.15,000/- and new registration No.CH01-CE-7713 was allotted to the car.

4]                After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the record, the District Commission dismissed the complaint of the appellant by observing in Para 3 (ii) & (iii), inter-alia, as under:-

“(ii)    The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence that as it stands proved on record from the document (Ex.C-5) that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4,33,000/- i.e. Rs.4,10,000/- on account of price of the car and Rs.23,000/- for the transfer of vehicle in his name and in addition to that OPs had also charged an amount of Rs.21,000/- from the complainant for the transfer of vehicle in his name, out of which they have only spent an amount of Rs.16,120/-, the said act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.  On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs contended with vehemence that as it is proved on record that the complainant had only paid an amount of Rs.21,000/- to the OPs for the completion of formalities for the transfer of the subject car in his name and an amount of Rs.23,000/- was never paid by him for the transfer of vehicle in his name, the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous consumer complaint against the OPs and the same be dismissed with costs.  There is force in the contention of the OPs as perusal of document (Ex.C-5) clearly indicates that an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- was paid by the complainant as price of the car to the OPs whereas an amount of Rs.23,000/- was paid as RF cost.  RF break up of Rs.23,000/- has fully been detailed on the top of Ex.C-5 further shows that an amount of Rs.5,500/- was paid for drum whereas an amount of Rs.7,500/- was paid as service and taillight charges and an amount of Rs.10,000/- for paint and rubbing  dry clean of the subject car making further clear that the said amount of Rs.23,000/- was not paid by the complainant to the OPs for the transfer of the vehicle in his name, as is the case of the complainant set up in the consumer complaint, rather the same was paid by him to the OPs for the service, paint and rubbing dry cleaning and other works of the subject car before receiving the subject car from the OPs. 

(iii)     So far as the case of the complainant that he had paid an amount of Rs.21,000/- to the OPs for the transfer of vehicle in his name is concerned, it is strange to see that nothing has been alleged by the complainant about the payment of said amount of Rs.21,000/- in the consumer complaint, rather it is the OPs who have specifically alleged in their reply that only an amount of Rs.21,000/- was paid by the complainant as he had requested the OPs to get the vehicle transferred in his name and in the replication, the complainant admitted this fact first time that an amount of Rs.21,000/- was paid by him to the OPs for the transfer of the vehicle which further falsifies the case of the complainant that he had earlier paid an amount of Rs.23,000/- to the OPs for the transfer of vehicle in his name.  Not only this,  even the OPs have explained the manner in which the said amount was spent by them for the transfer of vehicle by alleging that an amount of Rs.16,190/- was deposited for the transfer of vehicle with the Registering Authority for the purpose of re-registration of car which included one time road tax of Rs.15,000/- and even before that they had also obtained the NOC of the subject car from the previous Registering Authority and also arranged online appointment of the complainant with the new Registering Authority and the entire amount of Rs.21,000/- was paid by the complainant to the OPs for the said purpose, by hiring services of OPs, was spent by the OPs and in this manner there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.”

5]                The order of the District Commission has been assailed by the appellant on the grounds that the same cannot be supported from any legal angle being based on conjectures and surmises; that the order is contrary to law; that the respondents promised the appellant that he would become the second owner but on receiving the Registration Certificate (RC), the appellant came to know that he is the third owner and not the second owner as assured by the respondents; that the District Commission did not appreciate that the respondents took Rs.21,000/- and only Rs.16,120/- had been incurred for preparing Registration Certificate but the balance amount of Rs.4,880/- was not refunded by the respondents. It has further been stated that the District Commission on its own came to the conclusion that Rs.23,000/- was taken as RF cost for which breakup has been given by the respondents though in their written statement, the respondents are totally silent about the said fact and denied receipt of Rs.23,000/- from the appellant. As regards delay in transfer of registration, it has been stated that the appellant purchased the vehicle on 14.01.2021 whereas the respondents applied for NOC and got it issued on 02.04.2021. Thereafter, they applied for registration in the name of the appellant and got the same done afterwards and paid tax on 01.07.2021. It has been stated that on account of delay in registration, the insurance policy also expired on 17.04.2021 and the same could only be renewed after the transfer of the vehicle. Lastly, it has been prayed that the appeal be accepted, impugned order be set aside and complaint be allowed.

6]                The respondents, while supporting the order of the District Commission dismissing the complaint of the appellant, filed written arguments and reiterated the stand taken before the District Commission. It has been argued that the allegation of the appellant that there was deliberate delay in getting the car registered in his name even after charging the amount of Rs.23,000/- is totally wrong. 

7]                After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and going through the material available on record and the written arguments very carefully, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

8]                So far as the first contention, to lay challenge to the impugned order that the District Commission did not appreciate that the respondents took Rs.21,000/- and only Rs.16,120/- had been incurred for preparing RC but the balance amount of Rs.4,880/- was not refunded by the respondents, is concerned, it may be stated here that per record specially RECEIPT, document (Exhibit C-5), it is established that the appellant paid Rs.4,10,000/- towards the price of the car and further amount of Rs.23,000/- was paid as RF cost. Further, this RF Cost of Rs.23,000/- paid by the appellant includes Rs.5,500/- for drum; Rs.7,500/- as service & taillight charges and Rs.10,000/- for paint and rubbing  dry clean of the car. The respondents have given complete breakup of the amounts received from the appellant. The District Commission in Para 3(iii) of its order rightly observed that the respondents have explained the manner in which the amount was spent by them for the transfer of vehicle as an amount of Rs.16,190/- was deposited for the transfer of vehicle with the Registering Authority for the purpose of re-registration of car which included one-time road tax of Rs.15,000/- and even before doing that, the respondents had also obtained NOC of the car from the previous Registering Authority. Therefore, in view of the above stated position, we find no force in the contention raised by the appellant that he paid the amount of Rs.23,000/- for transfer of the vehicle. In our concerted view, the District Commission has rightly rejected this averment of the appellant.

9]                So far as the contention of the appellant with regard to delay in transfer of registration is concerned, it may be stated here that the said delay was due to force majeure circumstances i.e. due to coronavirus (COVID-19), which could not in any way be attributable to the respondents. Therefore, the appellant has totally failed to make out any case of deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents. 

10]              For the reasons recorded above, it is held that the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 passed by District Commission-I, dismissing the complaint of the appellant, does not need any interference and as such, is upheld. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

11]            Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

28.04.2023.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

[RAJESH K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad