Ludhiana: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised an automobile franchise for deficiency in service after it allegedly failed to get a registration certificate (RC) for a motorcycle bought by a customer within a reasonable time.
The commission comprising president K K Kareer and member Jaswinder Singh directed the Barnala Automobiles, Barnala road in Ludhiana, to pay a composite compensation of Rs 5,000 to complainant Gaganpreet Singh Sandhu of Haibowal Kalan. The commission, however, dismissed the complaint against the regional transport officer, Ludhiana.
Gaganpreet in his complaint to the commission dated October 11, 2019, said he had purchased a Royal Enfield motorcycle from Barnala Automobiles on February 15, 2019 for an amount of Rs 1.17 lakh. The complainant also paid other charges, including registration charges. The opposite party issued provisional registration certificate on February 16, 2019, which was valid for a month. But the complainant failed to get a registration certificate from RTO Ludhiana despite repeated visits and requests made in this regard.
Eventually, a legal notice dated May 24, 2019, was served upon the opposite parties and eventually RTO Ludhiana issued the registration certificate on June 19, 2019. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, it was requested that the opposite parties be directed to pay damages of Rs 30,000 to the complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs 22,000.
Upon notice, the opposite parties didn’t appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.
After going through the evidence, the commission said that as per the affidavit, Barnala Automobiles received charges for registration certificate along with the cost of the motorcycle, but failed to get the registration certificate issued within a reasonable time and eventually the registration certificate was delivered to the complainant on June 19, 2019 after about 4 months of the purchase of the motorcycle. It held that this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Barnala Automobiles as it was under an obligation to get the same issued within a reasonable time.
“In our considered view, it would be just and proper if Barnala Automobiles is directed to pay a composite compensation of Rs 5,000 to the complainant for deficiency of service.” It observed that as far as RTO Ludhiana is concerned, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and RTO and the complaint against RTO Ludhiana is liable to be dismissed.