AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission ") in Appeal No. 596/2011 and 733/2011, vide which both the appeals were dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum, Bastar, Jagdalpur on 14.10.2008 was confirmed.
BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint dated 13.10.2008 before the District Forum saying that the complainant had purchased TATA ACE (Magic) vehicle from the opposite party No.1/respondent No.1, M/s. Jaika Automobiles and Finance Pvt. Ltd., which was financed by opposite party No.2/respondent No.2, M/s. Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs. 1,31,452/- at the time of purchase of the vehicle and rest of the amount of Rs. 1.50 lacs was financed by Opposite party No.2/Respondent No.2. The said vehicle was purchased on 21.2.2008 at a price of Rs. 2,70,000/- and a Cover Note of the insurance policy was given to the complainant by O.P. No.1 on the same day. However, the Sale Certificate and TR certificate were not given to the complainant for 78 days. The said vehicle was given back to O.P. No.1 by the complainant on 09.5.2008 and he asked for refund of amount of Rs. 1,31,452/- paid by him. The vehicle could not be registered in the absence of the sale certificate. On the other hand, O.P. No.2 sent notice to the complainant on 27.9.2008 and demanded an amount of Rs. 42,292/-. It was stated that the loan amount had increased from Rs. 1.50 lacs to Rs. 1,75,011/-. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence adduced before them came to the conclusion that the opposite party No.1 had not done any deficiency in service because they did not issue the sale certificate in time due to late payment from opposite party No.2. However, the OP-2 had committed deficiency in service and for that they were directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment from the date of the complaint i.e. 14.10.2008 along with interest of 6% till realization and also to pay Rs. 1500/- within thirty days from the date of the order. The appeal filed by the appellant against this order was dismissed by the State Commission and they agreed with the view that OP-1 was not at fault and also the order passed against OP-2 was appropriate.
DURING the course of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had returned the vehicle to OP-1 as he was not able to obtain the sale certificate from OP-1 for a period of 78 days. At the moment the vehicle was with OP-1 and the petitioner wanted refund of his money.
WE have examined the entire material on record and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The case of OP-1/Dealer is that the sale letter was to be issued after receiving the full cost of the vehicle. The amount of Rs. 1.50 lacs was received by OP-1 from OP-2 on 06.5.2008 and immediately after that, the sale letter and other documents were prepared and were shown to the complainant but even then, the complainant left the vehicle in question on 09.5.2008 at the premises of OP-1. The vehicle had already run a distance of 12838 kms. during this period. The insurance cover had also been obtained and provided to the complainant and the temporary registration certificate was also there. It is clear therefore, that all documents; except the sale certificate had been provided to the complainant. The complainant has been running the vehicle also and so it is wrong on his part to say that the vehicle could not be run in the absence of registration certificate. In the light of these facts, it is clear that the order passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission are based on correct appreciation of the facts and material on record. Both these orders are upheld and the revision petition is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.