NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AKEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 30.5.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant following directions have been given to the appellant-opposite parties:

(2.) Put shortly, the facts of the case as can be gathered from the record are that in an auction held by the appellant-opposite parties on 20.12.1995 for the sale of accidental vehicles, the complainant had purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-29-D-7532, make Swaraj Mazda, Model 1991 bearing Engine No. SLCIG13443, Chassis No.4 GM-0021216, conducted by the M/s. Rangi Lalls, authorised auctioneers and Valuers of the opposite parties, for Rs.69,100 for which receipt dated 4.1.1996 was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant had to pay 6% sale tax on the purchase of the said vehicle. In this manner he paid total amount of Rs.73,246. For collection of Registration Certificate and Route Permit of the said vehicle, the complainant was asked to contact the office of the opposite party No.2. Accordingly, he approached the office of the opposite party No.2 at New Delhi but he was asked to approach the office of opposite party No.1 at Faridabad as relevant papers were lying in the said office. The opposite party No.1 had also issued a letter dated 10.1.1996 addressed to the opposite party No.1 to hand over the Form Nos.29 and 30, along with Registration Certificate of the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant accordingly visited the office of the opposite party No. l and he was handed over the above stated documents but he was asked to contact the said office after 20-25 days as the Registration Certificate was not traceable. Accordingly, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1 as directed but had expressed its inability to trace out the Registration Certificate and for that reason he was asked to approach the Registration Authority, Faridabad as the said certificate had been deposited by the opposite party No. l with the said authorities. The complainant then approached the Registration Authority, Faridabad but the Registration Certificate was not available with the said authorities. The complainant again contacted the office of the opposite party No.2 and maintained that the Registration Certificate had already been deposited with the Registration Authority at Faridabad at the time of transferring the vehicle in the name of the opposite party No.1. The complainant again contacted the Registration Authority, Faridabad but without any result. It is the further case of the complainant that on account of non-issuance of the Registration Certificate to the complainant, he could not ply the vehicle on road for commercial purpose after getting it repaired from February, 1996 upto the date of filing of the complaint and non-operation of the vehicle had further caused damage to the vehicle. In this manner he has suffered a total sum of Rs.4,96,390, as per details mentioned in para No.13 of the complaint. Accordingly, it was prayed that direction be given to the opposite parties to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the complainant along with interest @ 24% per annum. The claim was resisted by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that the complainant was supposed to take the delivery of the concerned vehicle from the concerned branch of the opposite parties at New Delhi because the vehicle in question was registered with the said branch and was in its custody. It was pleaded by the opposite parties that the opposite party No.1 was only required to sign form Nos.29 and 30, which were signed on 19.4.1996 and handed over to the complainant. It was further stated that the opposite parties had applied for getting duplicate Registration Certificate issued and they had obtained the duplicate Registration Certificate for doing the needful. They further raised the plea of locus standi; estoppel and non-maintainability of the complaint in the present form. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On scrutiny of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum found no substance in the stand of the opposite parties and issued the directions in its order noticed above. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties have been heard at length. None has chosen to appear to argue the case on behalf of the respondent-complainant.