The main legal point established is that the delay in registration due to confusion and delay on the part of the State Transport Authority does not constitute deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the respondents.

Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President—This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 26.7.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby her complaint was dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant (complainant) purchased a new car known as Alto Standard from M/s. Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd.-respondent No. 1, on 24.4.2004 vide sale letter, whose copy is Annexure A. she was allotted temporary registration No. CH18(T) 9604 which was valid for one month. Since, it was difficult to go out of station on the temporary registration number, so, she submitted complete documents to the Registering Authority for getting permanent registration number of her car on 11.5.2004. However, officials of Registering Authority, U.T., Chandigarh refused to get her car registered, since, the dealer/manufacturer had not taken prior permission for launching model alto Standard and as such no code had been allotted in the computer of Registration Branch.

3. It was next averred that she approached M/s. Joshi Autozone Pvt. Ltd.-respondent No. 1 who instead of giving her help, sent her to the Regional Office of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd.-respondent No. 2. Her father contacted Sh. H.S. Brar, Regional Manager, Deputy Manager Sh. Manish and also Shri Ram Krishan, but they simply ignored him saying that they had taken up the matter with the State Transport Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh. Her father sent letter to the General Manager (Sales), Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon on 17.5.2004 vide fax, whose copy is Annexure B and copy of the said letter was also sent to the Regional Manager, whose copy is Annexure C, but she did not receive any reply till the filing of the complaint.

4. With these allegations, she prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 50,000 for causing her unnecessary harassment and wastage of precious time, energy and money.

5. Respondent No. 2 denied the allegations and stated that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on its part and as such Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act was not applicable. It denied that the appellant was not competent to drive outside Chandigarh as the temporary certificate of registration for a period of one month was valid throughout India up to 23.5.2004 under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It further stated that the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment, Ahmednagar had approved technical specifications which were required for the launch of vehicle in the market for general public and accordingly Home Secretary-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Chandigarh had duly accorded approval for the registration of Maruti Alto Standard in the Union Territory of Chandigarh vide its order dated 13.5.2004, while it sold the vehicle in question with temporary registration number valid up to 23.5.2004. It further stated that the Registering Authority, U.T. Chandigarh started registration of Maruti Alto Standard well before filing of the complaint on 20.5.2004, so, the complaint should be dismissed.

6. Respondent No. 1 adopted the written reply as filed by respondent No. 2.

7. Parties adduced evidence by way of affidavits.

8. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, vide its order dated 26.7.2005 dismissed the complaint by holding the same to be devoid of any merit.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

10. We have heard Counsel for the appellant Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Counsel for respondent No. 1. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Counsel for respondent No. 2. Mr. Parmod Kumar had carefully gone through the file.

11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had purchased Maruti car having brand name ‘Alto Standard’ on 24.4.2004. She was supplied by respondent No. 1 temporary Registration No. CH-18(T) 9604 and it was valid for one month under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After one month, the temporary reg