Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). However, liberty was granted to the complainant, to file a civil suit, for getting relief, on the basis of detailed oral and documentary evidence.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who is employed as Senior Assistant, in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh, alleged that he had purchased one car-Nissan Sunny DC1 XV Euro IV, from the Opposite Party, on 23.02.2013, vide retail invoice Annexure C-1, on payment of Rs.8,96,159.54Ps. It was stated that prior to the delivery of car, a representative of the Opposite Party told the complainant that registration of the same (car) would also be got done by it (Opposite Party), within one month. It was further stated that the said representative of the Opposite Party, took all the required documents, from the complainant, alongwith the original papers, except insurance and photocopies of the same (documents). On 20.03.2013, the representative of the Opposite Party called the complainant, alongwith his car, for passing, in the Office of the Registering Authority, Sector 42, Chandigarh. The complainant took his car, to the aforesaid office, where it was checked and passed. The representative of Opposite Party told the complainant that he would submit the file, in the office of the Registering Authority. He further told the complainant that he would be informed accordingly about the registration number etc. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the representative of the Opposite Party, a number of time, and asked him to hand over the slip issued by the Registering Authority, as he was facing difficulty, in plying the car, on the road, but he lingered on the matter, on one pretext or the other.
3. It was further stated that, thereafter, the Chandigarh Administration, increased the registration charges. The complainant contacted the representative of the Opposite Party, to find out the latest position, but he told him that the file was still lying with him. The said representative of the Opposite Party, further told the complainant, to pay the registration charges, as per the new Policy of the Chandigarh Administration. Thereafter a legal notice dated 02.04.2013, Annexure C-5, was served upon the Opposite Party, to hand over the registration certificate, in respect of the car, in question, but to no effect. It was further stated that, on account of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant had to suffer a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. The complainant had also to travel to the office of the Opposite Party, a number of times, for the purpose. The complainant asked the Opposite Party, to compensate him, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to supply the original registration certificate of the car, in question; pay the amount of additional fee, paid by him (complainant), to the Registering Authority, as levied by the Chandigarh Administration; compensation, to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; Rs.15,000/-, as travelling expenses, incurred on visiting its (Opposite Party) office; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-
4. The Opposite Party, in its written version, stated that neither its representative promised the complainant, regarding the registration of car, in question, nor any document was taken by it, from him, for the said purpose. It was further stated that it was not the responsibility of the dealer/Opposite Party, to get the car of the customer registered. It was further stated that the complaint being false and frivolous, was liable to be dismissed. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, he reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. It was stated by the complainant, in the rejoinder, that the representative of the Opposite Party took all the original documents, from the complainant, for getting the car registered, from the Registering Authority. It was further stated that when the complainant asked him to supply copy of the documents, scanned copies of the same, through email-id of his (complainant) wife, were supplied to him. It was further stated that the Opposite Party also charged the amount, from the complainant, and the car was taken to the Regional Transport Office, Sector 42, Chandigarh, and passed in the presence of its (Opposite Party) employee. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. In reply to the rejoinder, filed by way of affidavit, it was stated by the Opposite Party, that the complainant received all the documents, in original, including Form No.21, 22, service book etc. as was evident from Annexures R-1 and R-2. It was further stated that the complainant himself submitted all the original documents, in respect of the car, in question, with the Registering Authority, without keeping any photocopy, with him. It was further stated that, on the request of the complainant, scanned copies of the documents, from the record file, kept by the Opposite Party, were sent to him, for his convenience. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
10. We have heard the appellant, in person, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The appellant/complainant, submitted that, at the time of delivery of the car, in question, all the original documents, were obtained by the representative of the Opposite Party, with a promise to get the same (car), registered, from the Registering Authority. He further submitted that, from Annexure R-1 copy of the retail invoice and Annexure R-2, copy of the sale certificate, it was not proved that the original documents were given to the complainant. He further submitted that since the representative of the Opposite Party, obtained money, from the complainant, for the purpose of getting the car, registered, and failed to get the same done, he suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, as also financial loss. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
12. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the complainant purchased a car-Nissan Sunny DC1 XV Euro IV, from the Opposite Party, on 23.02.2013, vide retail invoice Annexure C-1, on payment of Rs.8,96,159.54Ps. According to the averments, contained in the complaint, the original documents were received by the representative of the Opposite Party, from the complainant, with a promise that he will get the said car registered, and for that purpose, he was called to the office of the Registering Authority, Sector 42, Chandigarh, on 20.03.2013, where the same (car) was checked and passed, in his presence. Since, the complainant, admitted in the complaint that the original documents of the car, in question, were in his possession, when the same were allegedly obtained by the representative of the Opposite Party, it was for him, to prove this factum through cogent and convincing evidence. No documentary evidence was produced by the complainant, on record, to prove that the original documents of the car, in question, which were in his possession, were taken by the representative of the Opposite Party, for the purpose of getting the same (car), registered. In the complaint, no averment was made by the complainant that any consideration was paid by him, to the said representative of the Opposite Party, for the purpose of getting the said car registered. Such a plea was taken, by the complainant, in the rejoinder, when objection was raised by the Opposite Party, in the written reply, that it was the sole responsibility of the customer, to get his/her car, registered and the dealer was not concerned with it. Nothing was produced, on the record, to prove that any alleged consideration was paid by the complainant, to the representative of the Opposite Party, for the purpose of getting the said car registered, from the Registering Authority concerned. Had the complainant paid any amount to the representative of the Opposite Party, for the alleged registration of car, he would have certainly obtained a receipt, from him. Even nothing was mentioned, in the complaint, or in the affidavit, filed by the complainant, as to how much amount, for the purpose of alleged registration of the car, in question, was paid by him, to the representative of the Opposite Party. In his affidavit, by way of rejoinder, filed by him, the complainant, for the first time, stated that nobody was doing any work, without consideration. The said averment was made, in the rejoinder, by way of affidavit, by the complainant, just with a view to wriggle out of the predicament, as he knew that the service allegedly rendered by a person, without consideration, could not be said to be a service, falling within the definition of Section 2 (o) the Act, and, in that event, he would also not fall within the definition of a consumer. The District Forum was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion, that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, for the purpose of allegedly getting the car, in question, registered by the representative of the Opposite Party, as nothing was proved on the record, that he had paid any consideration for this purpose. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct are affirmed.
13. Not only this, in paragraphs no.3,4,5, and 6 of the complaint, the complainant, in clear-cut terms, stated that the representative of the Opposite Party, took the original documents of the car, in question, from him, and also got checked and passed the same (car), on 20.03.2013, in the office of the Registering Authority, Sector 42, Chandigarh. In case, the complainant had met any representative of the Opposite Party, he must be knowing his name. It was not that only once, the complainant met him, and did not know his name. It is unbelievable that a person like the complainant, who is a Senior Assistant, in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh, would easily believe the alleged representative of the Opposite Party, without knowing his name or designation. This factum also clearly established that no representative of the Opposite Party, ever promised the complainant, that he will get his car registered, and, thus, he obtained the original documents from him. It appears that such a story was concocted by the complainant, just with a view to get some money, from the Opposite Party, for whatever the reason may be. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the factum of non-disclosure of the name of the representative of the Opposite Party, who allegedly took the original documents of the car, in question, from the complainant, for the purpose of registration of the same (car), was sufficient to prove his case to be false.
14. No document was also produced, by the complainant, to prove that it was the responsibility of the dealer, to get the car, registered in his name. It is a matter of common experience that, as and when, a person purchases a vehicle, temporary number is allotted to the same (vehicle), by the dealer and the original documents of the same (vehicle) are handed over to the purchaser. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the purchaser, to get the vehicle registered, from the Registering Authority concerned, by submitting the requisite documents to it. For the purpose of registration of a vehicle, the purchaser is required to pay the requisite fee, as per the Rules, framed by the Govt./Chandigarh Administration, in the office of the Registering Authority, and then a slip is handed over to him, giving the tentative date, by which the said registration certificate would be ready. No such slip, alleged to have been issued, to the complainant or the alleged representative, was produced, on the record. Such a story, thus, set up by the complainant was completely a concocted one, and was rightly not relied upon by the District Forum.
15. Annexures R-1 and R-2 are the copies of retail invoice and sale certificate. From Annexure R-1, copy of the retail invoice, produced by the Opposite Party, it is evident that the complainant received Form No.21, Form No.22 and bill, apart from the service book, and second key. Such an endorsement, on receipt of these documents, and second key, bears the signatures of the complainant. Though, according to the Opposite Party, when the complainant asked for the copies of these documents, scanned copies thereof were sent to him, yet, those scanned copies were not produced by the complainant. The complainant had not denied his signatures, on Annexure R-1, regarding receipt of all the documents, referred to above. In case, these documents were not received by the complainant, then the question of obtaining his signatures thereon, regarding the receipt thereof, did not at all arise. Those scanned copies were not intentionally produced, on record, by the complainant. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that no cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the complainant, to prove that he handed over the original documents, in respect of the car, in question, to the representative of the Opposite Party, for the purpose of alleged registration of the same (car).
16. The District Forum was, thus right, in coming to the conclusion, that neither the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, so far as the alleged promise of the representative of the Opposite Party, for registration of the car, was concerned, as payment of no consideration was proved, nor there was any deficiency, in rendering service, nor indulgence into unfair trade practice, on its (Opposite Party) part. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
17. No other point, was urged, by the appellant.
18. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
19. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
20. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.