Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This is an Appeal filed by one Sri Jitendranath Roy, Partner of JDR Motors, Uttar Dinajpur against the Order dated 14-05-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Uttar Dinajpur in C.C. No. 62/2014 whereof the complaint has been allowed.
Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant is that, he purchased the subject car through the OP No. 1 on the basis of its assurance that it would make necessary arrangements for issuance of permanent Registration Certificate (RC) in the name of his minor daughter and for this purpose, he paid a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- to it. At the time of delivering the car along with temporary RC, the OP No. 1 promised to handover the permanent RC within a month and for this purpose, he took more than Rs. 20,000/- from the Complainant above the invoice value. Thereafter, on several occasions, the Complainant visited the service centre of the OP No. 1, but in vain. It is the further case of the Complainant that when he was in judicial custody in connection with a false case, taking undue advantage of his absence and simplicity of his minor daughter, the OP No. 1 took all car related papers, including the money receipt. After gaining knowledge about this matter, he again visited the service centre of the OP No. 1, but to no avail. Since then, long time elapsed, yet the OP No. 1 did not arrange any permanent RC in respect of the subject vehicle. Legal noticed served in this regard also did not yield any positive result. So, the complaint.
OPs did not contest the contest the case. Therefore, the case was decided ex parte.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP No. 1 denied all the material allegation of the complaint. The Appellant vehemently denied that the subject car was purchased by the Respondent No. 1 through him. The Ld. Advocate asserted that, it being a service centre, is in no way involved in the matter of selling of cars. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Heard the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent No. 3 also and gone through the material on record.
At first blush, no doubt, it did appear to us that the Respondent No. 1 was indeed a victim of circumstances. However, following grey areas of the case compelled us to take a differing view.
First and foremost, it is alleged by the Respondent No. 1 in his petition of complaint that when he was in jail custody, taking undue advantage of the simplicity of his minor daughter, the Appellant took away all car related papers, including the money receipt. However, notably, the Respondent No. 1 has not prayed for any relief to get back those papers from the Appellant.
Secondly, it is not at all believable that such valuable documents were kept with his minor daughter by the Respondent No. 1.
Thirdly, even if it is assumed that the Appellant indeed took those papers illegally, one wonders, why no police complaint was lodged in this regard by the Respondent No. 1.
Fourthly, the Respondent No. 1 although filed photocopy of a legal notice being purportedly sent by his Ld. Advocate, no such documentary proof is forthcoming before us to show that the same was indeed sent to the Appellant.
Fifthly, it is claimed by the Respondent No. 1 that he paid a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- towards the subject vehicle. It is further claimed by him that the Appellant took more than Rs. 20,000/- vis-à-vis invoice price of the car in question for making necessary arrangement for the Registration certificate. However, on going through the copy of Invoice it appears that invoice value of the car was Rs. 4,18,235/-. The remaining gap of more than Rs. 30,000/- [Rs. 4,70,000 – 4,18,235 – 20,000] is not bridged.
It is to be kept in mind that claim cannot be established merely by raising allegation. Cogent documentary proof or immaculate evidence is all that matter to pass muster judicial scrutiny which is sorely missing here. Accordingly, we cannot endorse the decision of the Ld. District Forum.
The Appeal, thus, succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the Appeal stands allowed on contest. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
