State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Tapan Industries. vs Sh. Aman Sood. on 22 June, 2018
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 296/2017
Date of Presentation: 25.11.2017
Order Reserved on : 16.04.2018
Date of Order : 22.06.2018
......
M/s. Tapan Industries (Automobile Division) c/o Late Shri
Murari Lal Goyal Complex-I Samlech Barog Bypass Solan
173211 H.P. through its Managing Partner Shri Tapan Goyal s/o
Shri Harish Goyal r/o Kather "Sushant" Bypass Solan H.P.
...... Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Aman Sood s/o Shri Sudarshan Kumar Sood r/o Dr. O.P.
Sharma Building near Vipul Gas Agency Hospital Road Solan
Tehsil and District Solan H.P.
......Respondent/Complainant
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Janesh Gupta Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Parikshit Singh Thakur Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 13.10.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) complaint No. 62/2017 titled Aman Sood Versus Tapan Industries.
Brief facts of Consumer Complaint:
2. Complainant Aman Sood filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that complainant purchased Demo vehicle bearing No. HP-62A-2975. It is pleaded that complainant paid all sale consideration amount to the opposite party but opposite party did not transfer the requisite documents for registration of vehicle despite several requests of complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party on dated 05.11.2016 almost after one month after the delivery of vehicle charged Rs.12300/- (Twelve thousand three hundred) from the complainant as road tax. It is further pleaded that opposite party also illegally shown sale consideration price of vehicle as Rs.454000/- (Four lac fifty four thousand) instead of Rs.410000/- (Four lac ten thousand). It is further pleaded that wife of complainant was suffering from leprosy and her treatment was undergoing in the Christian Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana since 28.11.2015. It is further pleaded that complainant has to visit Ludhiana for treatment of his wife. It is further pleaded that due to non-registration of vehicle complainant could not take the vehicle to Ludhiana because registration certificate was 2 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) not supplied to the complainant by opposite party and complainant has to hire taxi every month to take his wife to Ludhiana for medical treatment. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not transfer the vehicle in the name of complainant and did not supply registration certificate in the name of complainant and complainant has to park the vehicle in the paid parking near Shoolini Temple for which the complainant had to pay Rs.900/- (Nine hundred) per month since October 2016. It is further pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice. Complainant sought relief of direction to the opposite party to transfer the requisite documents in favour of complainant for registration of vehicle. In addition complainant sought payment of Rs.200000/- (Two lac) as compensation for harassment. In addition complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable.
It is pleaded that complainant has intentionally purchased Demo car which was a second hand vehicle. It is further pleaded that vehicle was already registered and no fresh invoice was generated. It is further pleaded that final sale 3 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) consideration of vehicle was settled at Rs.450000/- (Four lac fifty thousand). It is pleaded that complainant voluntarily purchased already registered vehicle. It is further pleaded that opposite party received sum of Rs.435000/- (Four lac thirty five thousand) from the complainant against offer price of Rs.450000/- (Four lac fifty thousand). It is further pleaded that vehicle was handed over to the complainant on dated 07.10.2016. It is further pleaded that it is not the responsibility of seller to get the registration certificate transferred. It is further pleaded that seller only gives affidavit and form signed by seller and it is the duty of buyer to transfer RC of purchased vehicle. It is further pleaded that when vehicle was given to the complainant then existing RC alongwith tax receipt till 31.03.2017 and insurance policy valid till 19.09.2017 were handed over to the complainant. It is further pleaded that opposite party had given seller affidavit and had also given form No.29 and 30 required for transfer of ownership of vehicle. It is further pleaded that RC was handed over to the complainant at the time of sale and it was duty of complainant to transfer RC in his name. It is further pleaded that complainant also tried to bribe staff of opposite party namely Shri Vishesh. It is further pleaded that show cause notice was also given to Shri Vishesh by opposite party and complaint was also filed in Police Station Saproon. It is 4 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) further pleaded that Shri Vishesh is absconding. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint.
5. Learned District Forum partly allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to supply registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay amount of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand) to the complainant towards mental harassment. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would pay amount of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainant towards litigation costs.
6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party filed present appeal before State Commission.
7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
5
M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017)
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Complainant filed affidavit Ex.CW-1 in evidence.
There is recital in the affidavit that deponent purchased Demo vehicle bearing No. HP-62A-2975 from opposite party. There is further recital in the affidavit that entire sale consideration amount was paid to the opposite party but opposite party did not transfer RC of vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent visited several times in the showroom of opposite party. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party on dated 05.11.2016 almost after one month of the delivery of vehicle charged Rs.12300/- (Twelve thousand three hundred) from the complainant as road tax. There is further recital in the affidavit that wife of complainant was suffering from leprosy and her treatment was undergoing in Christian Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana since 28.11.2015. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has to visit Ludhiana for treatment of his wife. There is further recital in the affidavit that due to non- registration of vehicle deponent could not take the vehicle to Ludhiana and deponent has to hire taxi every month to take 6 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) his wife to Ludhiana for medical treatment and deponent spent Rs.28000/- (Twenty eight thousand) as taxi fare. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party did not transfer the vehicle in the name of complainant and did not supply registration certificate to the deponent due to which deponent could not ply the vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that on dated 17.03.2017 deponent came to know that receipt given by employee of opposite party was forged receipt and FIR was also registered in Police Station Saproon Solan. There is further recital in the affidavit that legal notice was also given to the opposite party.
10. Opposite party filed affidavit of Tapan Goyal Managing Partner-cum-authorized person of Tapan Industries in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that complainant was interested in purchasing vehicle and visited the showroom of opposite party. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant purchased Demo car which was already registered instead of new car. There is further recital in the affidavit that price of car was offered by opposite party and same was accepted by complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that final sale consideration of vehicle was settled at Rs.450000/- (Four lac fifty thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party received sum of Rs.435000/- (Four lac thirty five thousand) from the 7 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) complainant against offer price of Rs.450000/- (Four lac fifty thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that vehicle was handed over to the complainant on dated 07.10.2016. There is further recital in the affidavit that thereafter complainant was told by opposite party that road tax would be paid by complainant as car was converted from PSV vehicle to LMV Vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party adjusted the complainant and reduced the sale consideration price by Rs.15000/- (Fifteen thousand). There is further recital in the affidavit that it is not the responsibility of transferor of already registered vehicle to get the registration certificate transferred in the name of transferee. There is further recital in the affidavit that transferor of already registered vehicle only gives affidavit and form signed by transferor of already purchased vehicle. There is further recital in the affidavit that when possession of already registered vehicle was handed over to the complainant then existing RC alongwith tax receipt and insurance policy were also given to the complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant engaged staff of opposite party namely Shri Vishesh without the knowledge of opposite party to get the work done in RLA Office. There is further recital in the affidavit that RC of vehicle already stood transferred in the name of complainant on dated 29.04.2017 vide annexure OP-4. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant 8 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) has no cause of action to file the present complaint. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainant bribed the staff of opposite party namely Mr. Vishesh. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party also filed criminal complaint in Police Station against Mr. Vishesh.
11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is decided accordingly. Opposite party has admitted that opposite party sold already registered Demo car to the complainant in consideration amount of Rs.450000/- (Four lac fifty thousand) which was later on reduced to Rs.435000/- (Four lac thirty five thousand). Opposite party has admitted that complainant paid consideration amount of Rs.435000/- (Four lac thirty five thousand) to the opposite party. In view of the fact that opposite party has received consideration amount of sale of already registered Demo vehicle it is held that case of complainant falls within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that complainant himself entered into a private arrangement with employee of opposite party and paid consideration amount to the staff of opposite party 9 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) namely Mr. Vishesh voluntarily and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that staff of opposite party namely Vishesh had received consideration amount from complainant during the time when Shri Vishesh was employee of opposite party. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of its employee and State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party could not be exonerated from its liability on the concept of vicarious liability of master.
13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that RC, Tax Receipt and Insurance Policy were handed over to the complainant by opposite party when possession of vehicle was delivered to the complainant on dated 07.10.2016 and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that transferor is under legal obligation to supply RC, tax receipt and insurance policy of already registered vehicle at the time of sale of vehicle to the transferee. Opposite party did not place on record any receipt signed by complainant proving that complainant received RC, tax receipt and insurance policy from the opposite party at the time when delivery of vehicle was given to complainant. No reason assigned by the opposite party as to why opposite party did not obtain receipt from the 10 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) complainant relating to delivery of RC, tax receipt and insurance policy at the time of delivery of vehicle to complainant. Plea of opposite party that RC, tax receipt and insurance policy were also given to complainant at the time of delivery of vehicle is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof). On the contrary opposite party has admitted in para No.5 of version that transferor affidavit was given to the transferee on dated 26.10.2016. State Commission is of the opinion that transferor was under legal obligation to give affidavit to the transferee on 07.10.2016 when delivery of vehicle was given to the transferee. Non- delivery of affidavit by opposite party i.e. transferor to the complainant on 07.10.2016 also amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
14. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that it was duty of transferee to obtain registration certificate from registering authority is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused RC annexure OP-4 issued in the name of complainant on dated 29.04.2017 by Registering authority. Column of specimen signature of owner is kept blank. No reason assigned as to why specimen signature of owner in the certificate of registration has been kept blank by licensing authority. As per Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 when 11 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) already registered vehicle was transferred then it was the duty of transferor to report the fact of transfer in such form with such documents and in such manner as prescribed by the Central Government to the Registering Authority within fourteen days within whose jurisdiction transfer of vehicle was effected and it was duty of transferor of vehicle to simultaneously send a copy of said report to the transferee. Operative part of section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is quoted in toto:-
50. Transfer of ownership of already registered vehicle (1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this Chapter is transferred then transferor shall (i) In the case of a vehicle registered within the same State within fourteen days of the transfer report the fact of transfer in such form with such documents and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee. In the present matter vehicle was already registered in the name of Tapan Multiventures prior to sale in favour of complainant vide annexure C-1.
15. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that transferor i.e. Opposite party has sent report of fact of transfer of already registered vehicle in such form with such documents and in such manner as prescribed by Central Government to the registering authority within fourteen days within whose jurisdiction transfer of vehicle was effected and 12 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) there is no evidence on record in order to prove that transferor had simultaneously sent copy of said report to the transferee. In view of the fact that transferor i.e. Opposite party did not send report of fact of transfer to the registering authority alongwith documents as mentioned under Section 50 of Motors Vehicle Act 1988 qua already registered vehicle it is held that above stated acts of opposite party amount to deficiency in service and also amount to unfair trade practice. State Commission is of the opinion that words 'transferor shall' mentioned in Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is mandatory in nature and not directory in nature. State Commission is of the opinion that when new vehicle is sold then it is the duty of transferee to obtain RC from registering authority but when already registered vehicle is sold then as per section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 it is the duty of transferor to comply mandatory provision of section 50(1)(a)(i) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
16. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that RC annexure OP-4 already stood transferred in the name of complainant on dated 29.04.2017 and order of learned District Forum directing opposite party to supply registration certificate of vehicle to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy warrants interference from State Commission is decided accordingly. 13
M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) In view of the fact that RC annexure OP-4 already stood transferred in the name of complainant direction of learned District Forum that opposite party would supply registration certificate of vehicle to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy warrants interference from State Commission.
17. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and is in accordance with proved facts and did not warrant any interference from State Commission is decided accordingly. In view of the fact that RC annexure OP-4 already stood transferred in the name of complainant direction of learned District Forum that opposite party would supply registration certificate of vehicle to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy warrants interference from State Commission in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed. Order of learned District Forum directing opposite party to supply registration certificate of vehicle to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of 14 M/s. Tapan Industries Versus Aman Sood (F.A. No.296/2017) copy is set aside because RC annexure OP-4 already stood transferred in the name of complainant on dated 29.04.2017 by registration authority. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay amount of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand) to the complainant towards mental harassment is affirmed. Order of learned District Forum that opposite party would pay amount of Rs.3000/- (Three thousand) to the complainant towards litigation costs is also affirmed. Order of learned District Forum is modified to this extent only. RC of vehicle annexure OP-4 issued in the name of complainant and RC of vehicle originally issued in the name of Tapan Multi- ventures annexure C-1 will form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member 22.06.2018.
*GUPTA* 15