SURYA AUTOMOBILES vs Jitender Kumar Sharma

ON account of having not delivered the registration certificate of the vehicle-TVS Victor GL, sold by the appellant to the respondent, the District Forum has, vide impugned order dated 21.8.2006 found the appellant guilty for deficiency in service and directed it to deliver the registration certificate to the respondent and also to pay Rs. 4,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order, in brief, were that he purchased a TVS Victor engine No. 3308M704322 and chassis No. N3308M746231 from the appellant on 1.1.2004 vide invoice No. 4220. Appellant charged Rs. 1,280 as registration charges. In spite of charging the hefty amount as registration charges, appellant had not delivered the registration certificate. Consequently the respondent was not knowing the correct registration number of vehicle. The respondent pleaded that he was running from pillar to post to get the registration certificate of the vehicle but appellant was not paying any heed.

While refuting the allegations of the respondent the appellant though admitted sale of the vehicle in question but denied charging Rs. 1,280 as registration charges as according to it these charges were for insurance and road tax and reason for not delivering the registration certificate was that respondent did not bring motor cycle along with relevant documents i.e., purchase invoice, I. Card, etc. and his registration for inspection and as such registration certificate could not be delivered.

IN our view this was hardly a reason to refuse delivery of registration certificate even if no charges were charged for the registration certificate. Seller of vehicle is supposed to arrange for the registration certificate from the RTO. Once the vehicle is sold against invoices, etc. wherein particulars of chassis number, engine number are mentioned the registration certificate has to be issued in favour of the purchaser as shown in the documents. There is no requirement nor any dealer can ask the party to whom it has sold the vehicle to bring again the vehicle to it for the purpose of registration certificate. INordinately long delay of more than two years in not delivering the registration certificate amounts to grossest kind of ''deficiency in service'' which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. We do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. For the delay in not delivering the registration certificate by the RTO, the appellant has an independent remedy.

F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and, thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.