ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DAYANAND SINGH
LAWS(UTRCDRC)-2014-4-1
UNION TERRITORY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 16,2014

ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
Dayanand Singh Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

"S.H.VIJAYANTHI VS. A.B.ANANTHA PADMANABAN (DECEASED) & ORS." [REFERRED TO]
NITA NASKAR VS. MANAS KUMAR MOITRA [REFERRED TO]


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.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed F.A. No.369/2010 for enhancement and the Opposite Party filed F.A. No.373 of 2010 for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. Both the appeals were decided by this Commission vide order dated 05.01.2011 by passing the following order: -

"14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by OP fails and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. The appeal filed by the complainant succeeds. The compensation amount of Rs.10,000/ - is enhanced to Rs.25,000/ - and the rest of the directions would remain the same. The appeal filed by the complainant is, therefore, allowed with costs. The OP shall pay litigation costs of Rs.10,000/ - to the complainant in respect of both these appeals".



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.