M/S. Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd vs Amit Kumar

C. Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in F.A. No. 155/2018 dated 12.07.2018.

IA No. 21663/2018 is an application for condonation of delay of 20 days according to the Petitioner and 32 days according to the Registry.In view of the averments made in the application, delay is condoned.

According to the Respondent/Complainant, on 03.01.2013, he purchased one old Car i.e. Maruti Alto LX (Model-2005) bearing registration No. HR 02M 0416 from the Petitioner/Opposite Party for Rs.1,20,000/- but receipt was given to the Respondent for only Rs.1,12,000/-. No NOC was issued even after two years and five months, despite making repeated calls, personal visits, written complaints and emails to the Petitioner, due to which the vehicle could not be got registered in the name of the Respondent. The Respondent also provided the Petitioner his affidavit, address proof etc. for the issuance of the NOC. The Respondent even requested the Petitioner to take back the vehicle and refund his money, but in vain. Notice issued by the Respondent was also not responded by the Petitioner. Thus, the Complaint was filed.

The Petitioner contested the Complaint in the Written Statement.It was contended that only Rs.1,12,000/- was paid and Rs.8,000/- was yet to be recovered from the Respondent and requisite documents were also not supplied by the Respondent. NOC, therefore, could not be issued. However the sale of the vehicle was not disputed.

District Forum, vide order dated 25.04.2018, partly allowed the Complaint on the ground that during the pendency of the Complaint, the documents required for the issuance of NOC were supplied by the Respondent, but even then the Petitioner had not taken necessary action to get NOC issued in favour of the Respondent. This act shows deficiency on the part of the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner wasdirected to pay Rs.42,000/- to the Respondent, alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 03.01.2013 till realization upon return of the vehicle to it by the Petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.The Petitioner was further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment caused to the Respondent and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation. The aforesaid order was to be complied by the Petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned above with interest @12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization apart from compliance of direction in regard to payment of compensation amount.

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 12.07.2018, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and upheld the order passed by the District Forum. It was also noted that the Respondent had earlier filed Appeal No. 125 of 2018 against the order of the District Forum for enhancement of compensation, which was also dismissed by the State Commission, vide order dated 21.05.2018.

Aggrieved of the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed this Revision Petition before this Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. She reiterated the contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the record.

From a perusal of the orders of the State Commission as well the District Forum, it appears that it was a sale of a second hand vehicle, as the same was registered in the name of some other person, although it was sold through the Petitioner only. The fact of sale of vehicle and non-issuance of the NOC was admitted by the Petitioner but he justified the non-issuance of NOC on the ground that the requisite documents were not supplied by the Respondent. Perusal of record shows that even during the pendency of the Complaint, the required documents were supplied by the Respondent to get the NOC issued. However, even then no steps were taken by the Petitioner to get NOC issued to the Respondent which clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner further reiterated, that in the meantime the original owner of the car died, and therefore, there was no necessity to get NOC issued for transfer of ownership in the registration certificate. This contention of the Petitioner itself shows that NOC was not issued. Further, the Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Respondent was ever intimated about the same. It also transpired during the proceedings before the State Commission that the owner of the car died much later than the sale of car to the Respondent.

The above discussion absolves the Respondent of any omission on his part. It was only the Petitioner who had not got the NOC issued to the Respondent, even after receiving requisite documents as sought by him.

In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are confirmed.