The Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a car dealership to finalize the ownership transfer of a traded-in vehicle and pay Rs 20,000 in damages to its original owner, who began receiving traffic tickets for the car years after its sale.
The Ruling And Financial Penalties
Commission President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and member Mohan Sharma directed Berkeleys Tata Motors to complete the registry update at its own risk and expense within 60 days. Should the dealership fail to meet this deadline, the Rs 20,000 compensation—awarded for harassment and litigation costs—will accrue annual interest at a rate of 9 percent.
Because representatives of the dealership failed to attend the commission’s hearings, the case was decided ex parte. The commission explicitly cleared the Chandigarh Registration and Licensing Authority (RLA) and the subsequent purchaser of any liability or service deficiency.
Origin Of The Dispute
The conflict began in 2019 when the complainant sought to buy a Tata Harrier from Berkeleys Tata Motors. The dealership offered a trade-in discount if the customer sold them his older Tata Indigo Manza. The transaction was completed on August 14, 2019, when the dealership took physical delivery of the older vehicle.
At the time of the sale, the complainant submitted all necessary paperwork to the dealership manager and, following their directives, secured a no-objection certificate from the Chandigarh RLA. Despite completing these steps, the dealership did not finalize the official transfer of ownership.
Unregistered Resales and Traffic Tickets
The issue came to light in September 2022 when the complainant received a traffic ticket issued by the Kashmir Traffic Department for the Indigo Manza. Upon confronting the dealership, the complainant was told that the car had been sold and was instructed to contact the new purchaser directly. The buyer informed him that the car had changed hands again and was now located in Jammu and Kashmir.
The complainant attempted to have the Chandigarh RLA block the vehicle’s registration certificate to prevent further liability. However, the authority refused the request because the complainant could not produce the original registration certificate. After issuing formal legal notices to the dealership and the subsequent purchaser, the complainant turned to the consumer commission.
During the proceedings, the Chandigarh RLA defended its actions, explaining that the vehicle remains registered in the complainant’s name because the necessary re-registration paperwork has not yet been submitted. The commission agreed with the RLA’s position, placing full responsibility for the administrative failure on the dealership.
