w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Asis Das & Sonali Das Halder v/s Shiva Motors

    Appeal No. 1153 of 2016 in Complaint Case No.353 of 2013

    Decided On, 25 January 2018

    At, Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. MAHESH CHAND
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: In Person. For the Respondent: Isar Husain, Advocate.



Judgment Text

A.H. Khan, President.

This is an appeal filed before State Commission under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 19-05-2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 353/2013 Asis Das & C.A. Sonali Das Halder V/s Shiva Motors, GM, VP Sales, Ghaziabad whereby the District Consumer Forum has dismissed complaint.

Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by District Consumer Forum, the complainant has filed this appeal before State Commission.

The appellant appeared in person.

Learned Counsel Sri Isar Husain appeared for respondent.

We have heard both parties and perused records as well as impugned judgment and order.

The relevant facts for determination of appeal are that the appellant/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum against respondent/opposite party wherein it has been stated that he purchased a Car from respondent/opposite party and got delivery of it on 30-05-2013.

In complaint it has been further stated by the appellant/complainant that the respondent/opposite party gave him temporary registration certificate of vehicle which was valid from 14-06-2013 to 13-07-2013. As such, it was necessary for the appellant/complainant to get permanent registration of vehicle before 13-07-2013.

It has been stated by the complainant that the respondent/opposite party M/s Shiva Motors could not manage to give him valid registration certificate and other documents to run the car on road after 13-07-2013 while he had promised to do so and has taken payment of Rs.7,51,543/- including these liabilities also.

In complaint it has been alleged by the appellant/complainant that in absence of valid registration certificate the complainant could not run his car on road. The complainant lodged complaint on General Motors Help Line No. but could not get permanent registration certificate.

In view of above averments the appellant/complainant has filed complaint before District Consumer Forum seeking following reliefs.

1. M/s Shiva Motors of Shahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P should give my permanent registration number from Noida, UP, alongwith and other necessary documents required for running the car, on urgent basis.

2. The car is incurring a loss of Rs.4,000/- per day. So Rs.4000 x Number of days which will be calculated on the date I am released my dues. (4000 x 73 = Rs.2,92,000/-) Two lakhs ninety two thousand only on 24-09-2013 + till the date I am released my demands.

3. For mental anxiety Rs.7,50,000/- (Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).

4. For legal and consultation fees Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only).

5. Depreciation of car valued at Rs.7,51,543/- @ 30% per annum which will be calculated on the day I am released my dues.

6. Maintenance and servicing of the car including parts and accessories to be provided free of cost by M/s Shiva Motors, Ghaziabad so that car is in new condition can run on the road. Now a days Car cannot run for it’s necessary recommended service by the car manufacturer.

The respondent/opposite party appeared before District Consumer Forum and filed written statement wherein it has been stated that the complaint has been filed with false allegations. The complainant has purchased car for commercial purpose. As such, he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the complaint filed by him is not maintainable under the Act.

In written statement it has been further stated by the respondent/opposite party that before expiry date of temporary registration certificate on 06-07-2013 the permanent registration of vehicle was applied on 06-07-2013 but the RTO office has delayed in issuing permanent registration certificate of the vehicle.

In written statement it has been further stated that the appellant/complainant has received permanent registration certificate on 13-11-2013.

In written statement respondent/opposite party has stated that he has not committed any deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The District Consumer Forum, after having considered pleadings of parties and evidence on record, has dismissed complaint vide impugned order.

The appellant/complainant has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is erroneous. The respondent/opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not providing permanent registration certificate of vehicle timely. As such, the respondent/opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the appellant/complainant.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party that RTO office was moved on 06-07-2013 for permanent registration of vehicle before expiry of temporary registration certificate but the RTO office has delayed in issuing permanent registration certificate. The respondent/opposite party cannot be blamed for the fault of RTO office. As such, the respondent/opposite party has committed no deficiency in service. The District Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed complaint.

We have considered the submissions made by both parties.

Copy of registration certificate of vehicle purchased by appellant/complainant from respondent/opposite party has been filed with appeal which is at page 19 of records of appeal. In it the registration date 06-07-2013 has been mentioned but the registration certificate has been signed by registering authority on 13-11-2013. Registration date 06-07-2013 entered into permanent registration certificate is evident of the fact that RTO office has been moved on 06-07-2013 for permanent registration of vehicle much before 13-07-2013 which was the date on which temporary registration certificate of the vehicle was expiring. Thus, it is apparent that respondent/opposite party has discharged its liability timely and the delay in issuing permanent registration certificate has been caused by RTO office. The respondent/opposite party cannot be blamed for the fault of RTO office.

Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

view that the respondent/opposite party has committed no deficiency in service. The delay in issuing registration certificate has been caused by RTO office but the complainant/appellant has not impleaded RTO office in the complaint as opposite party. In view of discussion made above, considering all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum cannot be said to be against law or evidence. Appeal has no force and is dismissed accordingly. Both parties shall bear their own costs. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
O R