Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Shankarnarayan and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
B.T. Jayanthi —Respondent
Revision Petition No.3847 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 10/08/2011 in Appeal No. 2233/2011 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 18.2.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Saransh Jain, Advocate with Mr. Madhavam Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit A. Pai, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Dealer is liable for not providing legal documents along with car enabling permanent registration.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b)—Automobile—Car-obtained on loan—Even after paying the entire amount, not delivered—Delivered on 28/1/2010 but without requisite forms for enabling permanent registration number—OP took stand that complainant did not pay the entire amount—The complainant forcible took away the vehicle from the showroom of the OP—FIR lodged—OP never assured discount.
Held: it is difficult for the individual to assess the person in the company by name. Concurrent finding of deficiency cannot be disturbed in revision. Complainant, clearly has paid the total amount of Rs.5,41,627/- and if an employee of the company has misappropriate some payment made by the complainant, complainant cannot be asked to make payment again. (Para 12)
Dealer held liable. Manufacturer not liable.
The opposite parties No.2 & 3 shall hand over form No.21 & 22 as per Motor Vehicle Rules in respect of the vehicle ……..and all the other documents required for permanent registration of the vehicle within one month to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and the expenses of the complaint of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Failure to pay the amount, on the total amount an interest at the rate of 10% per annum be paid till the entire amount is cleared. (Para 1)
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Shankakrnaryan & anr. against the order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No.2233/2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant booked Hyundai 120 Magna Car with the petitioner company. It is the case of the complainant that even after paying the total amount for the car the car was not being delivered to her. Later the car was delivered to her on 28.1.2010 along with service book temporary registration and other papers, however form 21 and 22 were not given to the complainant so she could not get the permanent registration of the vehicle. The complainant lodged a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hassan, (in short ‘the District Forum’) being CC No.134/2010 dated 06.07.2011. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant had not paid Rs.1,25,000/- and therefore, the vehicle was not being delivered to the complainant but the complainant forcibly took away the vehicle from the Hassan showroom of the opposite parties on 28.1.2010 when the complainant along with her husband and 25 ‘Gundas’ came to the showroom and threatened the staff and forcibly took away the vehicle. Opposite parties also filed an FIR with the police in respect of this incident. It was further alleged that the complainant had allegedly paid Rs.1,00,000/- to one Mr. Praveen who was consultant with the opposite parties and who did not have any authority to accept payment on behalf of the opposite parties. Moreover, there was no commitment to give discount of Rs.25,000/- as alleged by the complainant. Thus, the petitioners did not receive Rs.1,25,000/- and therefore form 21 and 22 were not issued. Claiming no deficiency in service OPs requested to dismiss the complaint. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 06.07.2011 as under:—
“1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 shall hand over form No.21 & 22 as per Motor Vehicle Rules in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA.09-H-3715 and Chassis No.MAL BBSI BLAM 137679 and Engine No.GHLAAM 322064 and all the other documents required for permanent registration of the vehicle within one month to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and the expenses of the complaint of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Failure to pay the amount, on the total amount an interest at the rate of 10% per annum be paid till the entire amount is cleared.
3. Complaint against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed without cost.”
3. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA No.2233/2011 which has been dismissed at the admission stage vide order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the State Commission.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that payment of Rs.4,41,627/- is accepted as the same was received from Canara Bank as loan taken by the complainant from Canara Bank. The fora below have accepted the assertion of the complainant, that the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to one Mr. Praveen by way of 3 booking amount on 3 booking forms being Rs.10,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- having been paid in cash to Mr. Praveen on different dates and last being on 3.12.2009 whereas the receipt has been given on 1.12.2009. Learned counsel argued that if the third instalment was paid on 3rd December, 2009 how was it possible to give receipt for total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 1st December, 2009. This clearly establishes that receipt dated 1.12.2009 is a fake receipt having been prepared by the complainant in connivance with Mr. Praveen. The learned counsel asserted that Mr. Praveen was no
