NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member
Fauzdar Motors —Petitioner
versus
Lok Nath Kushwaha and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1644 of 2008
(Against the Order dated 18/01/2008 in Appeal No. 420/2007 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
Decided on 1.12.2020

IMPORTANT POINT
Delivery of car without documents is illegal per se and certainly a deficiency in service.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Automobile – Withholding of documents by dealer – District Forum accepted complaint and directed OP1 to send original documents to complainant within 30 days as also pay Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- by way of costs – No error apparent or any material infirmity in impugned order of State Commission – If OP1 had sold vehicle and accepted arrangement implicit in Ikararnama, it has to bear consequences – This is certainly not a normal practice – As a responsible dealer, OP1 could not have delivered vehicle without original documents – Such a delivery was illegal – No vehicle can legally ply without these documents – This is law and OP1, as dealer, ought to have been well aware of this – Factum of delivery without documents was illegal per se and certainly a deficiency in service – It is not important nor relevant as to what informal arrangement existed between OP1 and complainant – Whatever may have been arrangement, it cannot justify action of OP1 – OP-1 has to be held to have been deficient in service – Revision Petition dismissed.

Held: Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service due to non-delivery of the original documents. The District Forum, in its order dated 25.01.2007, accepted the complaint and directed OP1 to send the original documents to the complainant within 30 days as also pay Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5,000/- by way of costs. On appeal, the State Commission was in total agreement with the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

Admittedly, the vehicle was sold to the complainant, with the help of loan provided by Ops 2 & 3. The disputed point as per OP1 is whether complainant had paid the full amount to OP1 or not; the related issue is whether the complainant was correct in alleging deficiency in service because OP1 had retained the original documents after handing over delivery of the car to him. District Forum reasoned, after hearing the learned counsels and perusing the entire record, that “the respondent no.1 (OP1) has caused the deficiency in service by illegally retaining the original documents of the vehicle. If there is any outstanding against the complainant then the respondent no.1 is at liberty to initiate any legal proceedings against respondent no.1 but he has caused deficiency in services thereby not handing over the documents by him.” (Ad verbatim per record). The State Commission concurred in the finding of the District Forum. The relevant portion of the State Commission’s order is as below:-

“The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the respondent no.1 has still to pay Rs.1,15,236/- to the appellant and that the said documents can be collected on payment of this amount. We would not like to go into the claim and counter claim regarding outstanding amount if any, due against respondent no.1. Once the vehicle has been delivered to the respondent no.1, the appellant dealer cannot withhold the said documents on the plea of some dues still remaining to be paid. The delivery of the vehicle itself could have been delayed for that reason. Besides, since the purchase was financed by respondent no.2 and 3, we see no reason how any amount could have been left unpaid and the appellant could still have delivered the vehicle in question to the respondent-complainant. Be it as it may, after going through the case and the record, we are in total agreement with the finding and observation of the learned Forum and see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs.”

I find no error apparent or any material infirmity in the impugned order of the State Commission. If OP1 had sold the vehicle and accepted the arrangement implicit in the Ikararnama, it has to bear the consequences. This is certainly not a normal practice. What is however clear beyond any doubt is that as a responsible dealer, OP1 could not have delivered the vehicle without the original documents. Such a delivery was illegal, to begin with. No vehicle can legally play without these documents. This is the law and OP1, as the dealer, ought to have been well aware of this. It follows that the factum of delivery without documents was illegal per se and certainly a deficiency in service. It is not important nor relevant as to what informal arrangement existed between OP1 and the complainant. Whatever may have been the arrangement, it cannot justify the action of OP1. OP-1 has to be held to have been deficient in service.

In view of discussion of above, this revision petition is dismissed after consideration. No order as to costs. (Paras 3, 10, 11 and 12)

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.