Jalna District Commission Holds PVK Vehicles Liable For Failure To Register Vehicle As Required Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalna (Maharashtra) bench comprising Smt. Aparna Hemant Kate (President), Shri Uday Dattu Dalvi (Member) and Shri Santosh Changdeo Nikule (Member) held PKV vehicles, a dealer, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to register the vehicle despite multiple requests made by the buyer. The bench held that as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, non-registration of the vehicle restricted the Complainant from driving it. Brief Facts: The Complainant purchased an electric two-wheeler vehicle for Rs. 79,845/- on February 25, 2022, from PKV Vehicles (“Seller”). This amount included the cost of the vehicle, insurance, and registration charges. Additionally, the complainant paid Rs. 3,000/- for the vehicle's registration through a demand draft from HDFC Bank on July 20, 2022. At the time of purchase, the Seller assured the Complainant that the registration of the vehicle would be completed. However, the Seller did not submit the necessary documents for registration. On December 8, 2022, the Complainant issued a legal notice to the Seller. The notice was delivered to the Seller on December 27, 2022, but the Seller did not respond. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalna, Maharashtra (“District Commission”). The Seller did not appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. Observations of the Commission: The District Commission noted that since the date of purchase, the Seller had not completed the vehicle's registration process. The Seller also failed to inform the Complainant about the registration status. Citing Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”), the District Commission held that no vehicle should be driven without proper registration. The Act mandates that every vehicle must be registered before being driven publicly. The Seller's failure to register the vehicle before delivering it to the Complainant was a clear violation of this provision. The District Commission observed that the Seller's failure to register the vehicle, despite having the necessary documents, constituted grave negligence, injustice, and a deficiency in service. The Seller's actions were deemed arbitrary and in violation of the directives from the registering authority. Further, the Seller's attempt to avoid responsibility for the vehicle registration was held to be unjustified. In light of these observations, the District Commission directed the Seller to pay the Complainant the invoice amount of Rs. 79,845/-, along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs. Additionally, the District Commission directed the Complainant to hand over the vehicle to the Seller after compliance with the order. Case Title: Amol vs PVK Vehicles Case No.: C.C./21/2023 Advocate for the Complainant: M.S. Dhannavat Advocate for the Respondent: None (ex-parte) Date of Pronouncement: June 7th, 2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Jalna District Commission Holds PVK Vehicles Liable For Failure To Register Vehicle As Required Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Jalna District Commission Holds PVK Vehicles Liable For Failure To Register Vehicle As Required Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers