Haryana

Sonipat

234/2014

BIMLA DEVI W/O CHHATTAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. RAHUL PAM PVT. LTD,2. HBD FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Mannu malik

29 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                                                                                     Complaint No.234 of 2014

                                Instituted on:11.09.2014

                                Date of order:18.08.2015

 

Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Chhattar Singh, resident of 1281, Indian Colony, Gohana Byepass, Sonepat.

                                                     ……Complainant

 

                     VERSUS

 

1.M/s Rahul Pam Pvt. Ltd., near Devi Lal Chowk GT road, Karnal through its Prop/Manager.

2.HDB Financial Services Ltd. Subhash Chowk Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

     ……Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Mannu Malik  Adv. for complainants.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

           Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva,    Adv. for respondent no.2.

          

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that she purchased one Santro GLS Car  from respondent no.1 on 9.12.2013 through one Naveen and she earlier deposited an amount of Rs.205000/- with respondent no.1.  The said car was got insured by respondent no.1 with United India Ins. Co.Ltd. for the period w.e.f. 9.12.2013 to 8.12.2014 and the same was got financed with respondent no.2.  It was assured by the respondent no.1 to the complainant that they will get the car passed from the concerned authority, but till date the respondent no.1 neither issued the bill nor they get the same passed from the concerned authority, rather they received the extra amount from the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.2 has appeared and filed the written statement, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.7.2015.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that no cause of action has arisen against the respondent no.2 because the dispute is regarding the RC in between the complainant and respondent no.1. The vehicle was financed and hypothecated by the respondent no.2.  The respondent no.2 never promised or never assured the complainant in any manner regarding the bill or RC etc.  The respondent no.2 was never party to any agreement done by the complainant and respondent no.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the respondent at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that no cause of action has arisen against the respondent no.2 because the dispute is regarding the RC in between the complainant and respondent no.1. The vehicle was financed and hypothecated by the respondent no.2.  The respondent no.2 never promised or never assured the complainant in any manner regarding the bill or RC etc.  The respondent no.2 was never party to any agreement done by the complainant and respondent no.1. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2. He has further submitted that the complainant has already deposited Rs.402612/- (Rs.205000 plus Rs.197612) with the respondent no.2.

          The perusal of the pleadings of the complainant itself shows that the grievances of the complainant are against the respondent no.1.  But it is very sorry state of affairs that the respondent no.1 to rebut the said allegations, has got himself proceeded against ex-parte and due to this, the allegations against the respondent no.1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.  The respondent no.1 has got financed the vehicle initially from PNB Sonepat and later-on the said car was also got financed from respondent no.2.  In our view, when the respondent no.1 has taken the responsibility for getting the car passed from the concerned authority and also for getting the RC of the vehicle, then it was obligatory on his part to perform his promise and commitment.  In our view, not performing his commitment by the respondent no.1, amounts to deficiency in service on his part and the respondent no.1 cannot escape from his legal liabilities by getting himself ex-parte from the present proceedings.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to get pass the vehicle in question from the concerned authority and also to get issue the RC of the vehicle from the concerned authority.  For rendering deficient services, unnecessary harassment and under the head of litigation expenses, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousands).   As per document Annexure C-3, the vehicle in question was insured with United India Ins. Co. Ltd. vide cover note no.86178 on dated 9.12.2013 and as per this cover note, the IDV of the vehicle is Rs.3,38,702/-.  There is lot of difference between the amount already paid by the complainant and IDV of the vehicle. As per the complainant, she has already paid an amount of Rs. 402612/- (Rs.205000 plus Rs.197612) to the respondent no.2.  But we cannot pass any order regarding the refund of any excess payment in favour of the complainant since there is no prayer in this regard from the side of the complainant.  The complainant’s prayer is to direct the respondent no.1 to get the car passed and to obtain the RC of the car from the concerned authority and in this regard, the respondent no.1 has been directed specifically.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 as we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:18.08.2015