LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-4-1

ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DAYANAND SINGH

Decided On April 16, 2014
ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Dayanand Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.02.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the application dated 24.02.2014 for impleading legal heirs of the deceased Sh.Inder Dev Singh, as also the Execution Application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Opposite Party (now appellant) was stood dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case, are that on 21.6.2007, the complainant -Sh.Inder Dev Singh purchased a second hand TATA Sumo Car from the Opposite Party -Sh. Ashok Kumar at a price of Rs.1,50,000/ - and was also assured that No Objection Certificate would be issued to him within a week by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. When he went to the Opposite Party, to collect the said Certificate on 22.6.2007, it was informed that the said Certificate had already been applied for by the Opposite Party and was to be issued to him, within a few days. A copy of the RC duly signed by the brother of Sh. Ashok Kumar, was handed over to the complainant and he got the said vehicle insured with the Insurance Company. However, the Policy of Insurance was issued in the name of its original owner i.e. Sh. Ashok Kumar as the complainant was not the registered owner of the vehicle in question. The grouse of the complainant was that despite visiting several times, the Opposite Party, refused to hand over the No Objection Certificate to the complainant on one pretext or the other and almost 1 1/2 year had lapsed, but the said Certificate has not been supplied by the Opposite Party due to which, the vehicle, in question, had not been transferred in his name so far. Alleging non supply of 'No Objection Certificate' to be as deficiency in service, on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) THE complaint filed by the complainant was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 06.09.2010.