Pranav B Prem

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, consisting of President Peerzada Qousar Hussain and Member Nyla Yaseen, has held Fairdeal Motors and Workshop Pvt. Ltd. liable for unfair trade practice for issuing a fake temporary registration number to a consumer, thereby compelling him to bear additional financial costs.

Also Read: NCLAT Rules, Litigants Are Not Trained Advocates, Restoration Application Can't Be Dismissed Due To Counsel's Failure To Inform Of Proceedings

The complainant, Ghulam Nabi Khoja, a resident of Malikpora Bunpora, District Kupwara, purchased a Tata Tiago Ex vehicle bearing Chassis No. MAT62601JKJ88301 and Engine No. REVTRNO2JRYK88420 from the Kupwara branch of Fairdeal Motors on 23.10.2018. He submitted all the necessary documents and paid the required charges for obtaining a temporary registration number at the time of purchase.

Subsequently, he approached the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO) at Kupwara for registration of the vehicle. However, he was informed by the ARTO that the temporary registration number issued to him by Fairdeal Motors was invalid and fake. The complainant then returned to the dealer, requesting the issuance of a proper and valid temporary registration number, but his request was not heeded. Despite repeated follow-ups, the opposite party did not issue a fresh or genuine registration number.

In the meantime, amendments to the Motor Vehicles Rules came into force, mandating that vehicle owners pay 9% of the vehicle’s value as registration fee. Due to the delay in registration caused by the fake number, the complainant became liable under the new regime and had to pay ₹37,878/- for registration of the vehicle, which he claimed would not have been necessary had the dealer issued the correct temporary number initially.

Upon receiving no cooperation from Fairdeal Motors, the complainant issued a legal notice to the Deputy General Manager of the company at its Kupwara unit. However, the notice did not evoke any response. With no other recourse, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

Despite being served with notice, Fairdeal Motors failed to appear before the Commission, and the matter proceeded ex parte. The complainant supported his claims with oral and documentary evidence and produced three witnesses in support of his case: Fayaz Ahmad Ganai, Ghulam Mohammad Lone, and himself. All of them confirmed under affidavit that the vehicle was purchased in 2018, a fake temporary registration number was issued, and the vehicle could not be registered due to this, resulting in financial loss.

The Commission observed that the issuance of a fake temporary registration certificate is not only contrary to legal obligations but also amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite party was under a legal duty to issue valid registration documents and ensure proper registration of the vehicle at the time of sale. The act of issuing a fake registration number, according to the Commission, violated the rules and regulations and placed an unfair and avoidable financial burden on the complainant.

Holding Fairdeal Motors accountable, the Commission relied on Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, to conclude that the dealer had indulged in unfair trade practices.

The Commission allowed the complaint and issued the following directions:

Also Read: NCLAT Rules, Mere Execution Of Restructuring Agreement Does Not Extinguish Corporate Debtor's Liability When Restructuring Scheme Is Not Approved By NCLT

• Fairdeal Motors was directed to refund ₹37,878/-, the excess amount paid by the complainant towards registration under the changed rules.

• It was further ordered to pay ₹1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and financial hardship.

• ₹10,000/- was awarded as litigation expenses.

• The Commission also directed Fairdeal Motors to ensure that such incidents do not recur in future and that proper documents, including valid temporary registration numbers, are issued at the time of sale of vehicles.

The opposite party was given four weeks from the date of receipt of the order to comply.

Appearance

Adv. Shabir Ahmad Bhat present for the complainant.

Cause Title: Mr. Ghulam Nabi Khoja V. TATA Motors and Workshop 

Case No: Consumer Complainant No: 131/2024 

Coram: Peerzada Qousar Hussain [President], Nyla Yaseen [Member]