District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.106/2021.

 Date of Institution: .25.02.2021.

Date of Order: 11.01.2023.

Rahul Singh Chaudhary aged about 20 years son of Shri Chandan Singh resident of House No. 152, Shiv Enclave Part-I, Secator-91, Faridabad.  Adhaar No. 5921 5506 0625 Mobile No. 8285999852.

                                                                   …….Complainants……..

                                                Versus

1.                Registering Authority, Secator-12, Faridabad through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridabad. Through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridabad.

2.                Solitaire Automotive Limited, A-60C, Ground floor, Sector-63, Noida Uttar Pradesh through its Director/MD/Principal Officer.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Mohd. Nafees Khan ,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Opposite party No.1 exparte vide order dated 30.03.2022.

                             Opposite party No.2 ex-parte vide order dated 14.12.2021.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant purchased the vehicle motorcycle Royal Enfield bearing its Chassis No. ME3U3K5C1KM575271, Engine No. U3K5C1KM180029, Model 2019 from the opposite party No.2 vide invoice No. INV-5811192001726 dated 06.12.2019 for the total sale consideration of Rs.1,16,340/-.   The complainant was the permanent resident of Faridabad hence the sale certificate was issued on the residential address of the complainant and the opposite party No.2 had issued the  sale certificate and said vehicle  delivered to the complainant on 06.01.2020.  The Form NO. 21 was issued by opposite party No.2 company for registration of vehicle at Faridabad.  After  purchasing the said vehicle the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.1 and enquired about the formalities and papers and later on he had started completing the paper formalities.  But in the meantime, due to the pandemic disease Covid-19/Corona Virus the offices of opposite party No.1 as well as other Government offices were permanent closed due to lock down.  After unlock of the lock down the complainant visited to the office the opposite party No.1 after completing the papers and formalities and requested the opposite party No.1 to get registered the above said vehicle in their office but the employees of the opposite party No.1 firstly avoided to the requests of the complainant and lastly on 27.01.2021 the opposite party No.1 had clearly refused to get registered the said vehicle in their office because registration of BS-4 Model was banned by  government.  Thereafter the complainant went to opposite party No.2 and asked

the opposite party No.2 either to change the said model vehicle into new model vehicle or to refund the amount of sale consideration of Rs.1,16,340/- of the said vehicle, because the opposite party NO.2 knowingly and deliberately had not disclosed this fact said model was banned by the government for registration at the time of purchasing the vehicle.  But opposite party No.2 clearly refused to change the new model or to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs.1,16,340/- to the complainant.  The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 that he was ready to deposit fees and charges of the said vehicle but the officials of the opposite party No.1 told that the said vehicle was having BS-4 Model and it could not be registered with Registration Authority at Faridabad. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                register the vehicle motorcycle royal Enfield bearing its chassis No. ME3U3K5C1KM575271, Engine No. U3K5C1KM180029, Model 2019

b)                If the said vehicle could not be registered on account of legal obligations and difficulties in that event the opposite party No.2 may kindly be directed either to replace the above said vehicle with new model which can be registered with opposite party No.1 OR alternatively to refund the principal sale consideration of Rs.1,16,340/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchasing the said vehicle till the date of realization of the said amount to the complainant.

 b)                pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party No.1  put in appearance through counsel and filed

written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had not come to the court with clean hands and had concealed material facts from the Hon’ble court hence  he was not entitled to any relief claimed by him in the complaint.  In this regard, it was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had issued directions regarding registration of only BS-IV vehicles form 01.04.2020 vide order dated 27.03.2020 passed in the matter of WP © No. 13029 of 1985, MC. Mehta Versus Union of India, according to which the registration of vehicles can be done or before 30.04.2020. Keeping in view the pandemic situation a letter NO. 15676-89/T-3/St-II dated 24.04.2020 was issued by Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh to all the registering authorities in the state to keep office open by following social distancing norms to that work of registration of vehicles may not suffer.  The office of answering opposite party was also open during lock down with minimum staff registered but the complainant did not present his file for registration within stipulate time.  The details of certain vehicles registered in the office of answering opposite party to show that the office was open during lock down for vehicles required to be registered till 30.4.2020,  This way the complainant was sleeping over his right so no relief can be granted to him.  Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Case called several times since morning but non appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2.  Hence, opposite party No.2 was hereby proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.12.2021.

4.                The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.

5.                  Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on

behalf of opposite party No.1. Hence, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.03.2022.

6.                 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.

7.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties – Registering Authority etc. with the prayer to: a)  If the said vehicle could not be registered on account of legal obligations and difficulties in that event the opposite party No.2 may kindly be directed either to replace the above said vehicle with new model which can be registered with opposite party No.1 OR alternatively to refund the principal sale consideration of Rs.1,16,340/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchasing the said vehicle till the date of realization of the said amount to the complainant.  b) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case, the complainant  has led in his evidence Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Rahul Singh Chaudhary, Ex.C-1 – Tax invoice,, Ex.C-2 – Form 21, Ex.C-3 – Form 22,, Ex.C-4 – Temporary certificate of registration, Ex.C-5 -  insurance policy, Ex.C-6 -  adhaar card,

 8.               There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite parties Nos1 & 2 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 have rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.

9.                Opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the  vehicle in question of the same model, subject to charge  25% payment of the invoice amount without taxes & GST.   Opposite party No.1 will adjust the tax amount if already paid on the vehicle in question.  The complainant is also  directed to hand over the old  vehicle in question to the opposite party after receipt of the copy of the order.  There are no order as to costs.  Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.   Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost.   File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  11.01.2023                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.