Delhi

North East

CC/60/2019

Mr. Ashish - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aman Motors - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 60/19

In the matter of:

 

		Mr. Ashish, S/o Sh. Sunil Chauhan, R/o E-84, Gali No. 4, E Block, Ankur Enclave Karawal Nagar, North East, Delhi 110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1.           2.           3.	Aman Motors, Through its Proprietor, Office at: Pusta 3, ½ Kartar Nagar, Delhi 110053 Dealer Code 64517   Amar Motors, Through its Proprietor Office at: B 17, 2nd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi 110094   ICICI Lombad General Insurance Co. Ltd., 6th Floor, E-1, Block, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		09.05.2019 28.02.2024 06.05.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 03.02.2019 Complainant had purchased a motor vehicle from the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 63,000/- in cash and Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 had issued a receipt for the same vide receipt          no. 32554 and also gave the delivery of the motor cycle in question to the Complainant. Complainant stated that Complainant was issued the insurance policy of Opposite Party No. 3 in respect of the motor cycle in question for     Rs. 5,463/-. The period of the said insurance was from 03.02.2019 to 02.02.2024. Complainant stated that after getting the delivery of the said motor cycle, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 assured the Complainant that he would receive the registration certificate of the same from the department of Transport of Govt. of NCT Delhi as well as number plate. Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 also assured that registration certificate would be received directly at the residence of the Complainant and number plate would be collected by the Complainant from the showroom of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant stated that after one month from the date of purchase he did not receive any information regarding registration certificate then he visited the showroom of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant stated that after reaching the showroom of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2, they refuse to accept that they had sold the motor cycle in question to the Complainant and they also refused to give the registration number. Thereafter, on 01.03.2019, Complainant had made a complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Sonia Vihar but no action was taken till today. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties.  Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 to immediately start the process to the RTO office for the registration certificate of the motor cycle in question. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is alleged that the complaint is false. It is stated that they never sold the alleged vehicle to the Complainant at any point of time. It is stated that employees of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 namely Priyank, Afroz, Yasin, Hamid and their associates had stolen the receipt book of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 bearing serial no. from 32551 to 32600. They had also stolen some original documents like delivery challan, service books etc. The alleged receipt no. 32554 filed by the Complainant has been forged and fabricated by the Complainant in connivance with the staff of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party       No. 2. It is stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 has also lodged FIR in this regard in Police Station, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party   No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2
5. In order to prove their case, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 has filed affidavit of Shri Madhu Sudan, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased one bike from the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2  for a sum of Rs. 63,000/-  and his case is that despite purchasing the said bike from the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2, the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 did not give him the registration certificate of the vehicle. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased the said bike in cash vide receipt no. 32554. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is that they had never sold any bike to the Complainant at any point of time. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 that the said receipt no. 32554 along with other receipts and documents were stolen by its staff and the same has been forged by the Complainant in connivance with its staff. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 that one FIR has been registered in Police Station, Sonia Vihar, Delhi in this regard.
7. The question which is to be decided that whether the Complainant has purchased the bike from the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. The Complainant has not produced the invoice regarding the purchase of the bike from the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. He has simply filed copy of the receipt bearing no. 32554. The perusal of the said receipt shows that the said receipt does not mention any sale of the motorcycle to the Complainant. The said receipt mention about received of Rs. 63,000/- from the Complainant. No chassis no., colour or model has been mentioned in the said receipt.  The relevant part of the said receipt is reproduced as under:

“No. 32554                                                                                                                                        Dated: 03.02.19

Received with thanks from M/s Mr. Miss. Ashish

S/o Sunil Singh, R/o H.No. E-84, Gali No. 4, Karawal Nagar, Delhi

the sum of Rupees Sixty three thousand only

by cash/cheque*/Draft No. Credit Card Cash

Chassis No., Model & Colour SPL +13S

Challan No……………………………………………………….. D. Date………………………..

 

Rs. 63,000/-For AMAN MOTOR

Price applicable at the time of Delivery

*Subject to Realisation of Cheque.

(Signature)

Authorised Signatory”

                                                                                                                                                                       

8. This receipt does not show that any bike was sold to the Complainant. Further, the grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 did not issue the registration certificate of the bike to the Complainant. The Complainant has failed to lead any cogent evidence that any registration charges etc. were paid to the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2. From the perusal of the evidence lead by the Complainant, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to show that he had ever purchased any bike from the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party   No. 2 or that he had paid any registration charges to the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 06.05.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)        Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President