State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Som Nath on 14 December, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1551 of 2014
Date of institution : 28.11.2014
Date of decision : 14.12.2015
Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd., Savitri Complex-I, G.T. Road, Dholewal,
Ludhiana, through its Law Officer.
....Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Som Nath S/o Kanshi Ram, R/o VPO Dhanaula, Tehsil and District
Barnala.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
28.08.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri H.S. Bedi, Advocate
For the respondent : None.
JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.08.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Som Nath, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite party was directed to hand over the RC (Registration Certificate) of the vehicle to him and to pay a First Appeal No.1551 of 2014 2 compensation of Rs.10,000/-, on account of the mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2,000/-, as litigation costs.
2. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, the complainant purchased one car make Fiat Punto Active from the opposite party and at the time of purchase, its officials told that the RC thereof would be given to him after getting the same prepared from the concerned DTO Office, Ludhiana; for which the registration amount is to be submitted to them. As per those instructions, he deposited Rs.11,825/- with the opposite party, vide receipt No.8417 dated 30.08.2012, for getting the RC prepared. That amount was duly entered by the opposite party in its ledger on the same day. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, the second original key thereof was not given to him and when he asked for the same, he was told by its officials that the same would be given to him, along with the RC. He approached the office of the opposite party a number of times and requested its officials to give the RC and second key of the car, with the plea that the temporary number, so provided, was valid for one month and for want of the permanent number, he was facing problems and had been left with no other option, but to ply the vehicle without the permanent number. Those officials kept on dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he sent legal notice dated 05.02.2013 to the opposite party, calling upon it to give him the second original key and RC of the car within 15 days of the receipt of that notice, but to no effect. Only the second original key was handed over to him, a couple of months back, but the RC First Appeal No.1551 of 2014 3 was never delivered. He prayed for the issuance of following directions to the opposite party:-
i) to give the RC of the car to him; ii) to pay Rs.50,000/-, as compensation on account of mental
tension, agony and harassment suffered by him on account of its deficiency in service; and
iii) to pay Rs.10,000/-, as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, by filing its written reply before the District Forum. It admitted that the car, in question, was purchased from it by the complainant on 04.11.2011 and that the sum of Rs.11,825/- was deposited with it. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it averred that at the time of the sale of the car, temporary No.PB-10-DG-4032 was given, which was valid for 30 days and the complainant was required to deposit the registration fee within that period, but the same was deposited after nine months on 30.08.2012 by the complainant himself with his own will. At that time, it requested him that identity proof and residence proof was required, but he failed to furnish the same. Therefore, he himself was responsible for the delay in the registration of the vehicle. It cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on its part. The permanent registration number could not be applied for want of identity and residence proof; which was never furnished by the complainant. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
First Appeal No.1551 of 2014 4
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party, as no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant at the time of arguments. We have also carefully gone through the records of the District Forum.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the District Forum committed an illegality, by recording the findings in favour of the complainant, while totally ignoring the evidence produced on the record to the effect that the complainant failed to furnish the identity and residence proof; which was required for getting the vehicle registered. In the absence of that proof, the opposite party could not have deposited the registration fee for obtaining the permanent registration number. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on its part. He also submitted that the complainant deposited the alleged registration fee of Rs.11,825/- on 30.08.2012, after he had come to know that the rates of the registration fee were going to be revised from 31.08.2012. Notification was issued by the Govt. of Punjab on 31.08.2012, vide which the registration fee rates were revised. The complainant was required to pay the registration fee, as per those revised rates, but he failed to do so and, as such, the opposite party could not apply for the registration of the vehicle. In these First Appeal No.1551 of 2014 5 circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant deposited Rs.11,825/- with the opposite party, as registration fee, for obtaining the Registration Certificate from D.T.O., Ludhiana. All the allegations made by him in the complaint are supported by his affidavit Ex.C-A, which has not been controverted by the opposite party. No evidence has been produced by the opposite party for proving the averments made in the written reply that for applying for the Registration Certificate, the identity and residence proof were required and the complainant failed to furnish the same. Even if such proof was required, even then it cannot be said that the order passed by the District Forum, directing the opposite party to pay the compensation and litigation costs, is not sustainable. The opposite party was duty bound to send intimation to the complainant that such proof was required and that he should submit the same immediately. The non- giving of such an intimation amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
8. At the time of arguments, Notification No.3/2/2011- 2T2/1475 dated 31.08.2012 was placed on record by the counsel for the opposite party. Vide that Notification, partial modification was made in the previous Notification, prescribing the rates of Motor Vehicle Tax. That Notification came into force with effect from 01.09.2012 and thereafter, the Motor Vehicle Tax was to be paid, as per the revised rate. According to the counsel for the opposite party, the sum of Rs.11,825/-, so deposited by the complainant as First Appeal No.1551 of 2014 6 registration fee, was as per the old rate of Motor Vehicle Tax and he was required to pay the revised rate of Motor Vehicle Tax and, as such, was liable to make good the balance amount. If it was so, then the opposite party was required to send intimation to the complainant for making up the deficiency in that registration fee. No evidence has been produced by it for proving that such information/intimation was given to the complainant, calling upon him to pay the balance amount. It also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the finding recorded by the District Forum regarding the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for the same, awarding compensation and litigation costs, is not correct. However, keeping in view the revised rate of Motor Vehicle Tax, the opposite party could not have been directed to hand over the RC of the vehicle to the complainant, without a direction to him to pay the balance amount, as per the revised rate of Motor Vehicle Tax.
9. The complainant proved on record the "Vehicle Delivery Certificate-cum-Gate Pass" as Ex.C-2. As per this document, the actual price of the vehicle, in question, was Rs.5,21,293/-. As per the above said Notification, the rate of Motor Vehicle Tax/registration fee was to be calculated at the rate of 6% of that amount. Thus, the amount, so deposited by the complainant, was less than the amount, which was payable by him as Registration Charges. The opposite party shall include the amount of the compensation and the litigation costs, so awarded by the District Forum, in the above said amount and if that amount exceeds the registration fee, so payable in First Appeal No.1551 of 2014 7 respect of the vehicle, then the RC of the vehicle shall be obtained by the opposite party within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order and it shall be liable to pay the balance amount to the complainant, along with the RC. In case, that amount is still less than the amount, which is payable as registration fee, then the complainant shall pay the balance amount to the opposite party within one month of the receipt of copy of the order and the opposite party shall deliver the RC to the complainant within one month of the deposit of that amount. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
10. The sum of Rs.6,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant/opposite party, by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
11. The arguments in this case were heard on 10.12.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER December 14, 2015.
(Gurmeet S)