Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that he got this Motor Cycle bearing RC No.PB-76-A-3318 HF Deluxe Hero, Model 2018 financed from the Opposite Parties and said vehicle was purchased for approximately Rs.58,000/-. The complainant deposited dRs.14,000/- as earnest money and thereafter, he deposited Rs.15,000/- on 29.06.2019 and Rs.5,000/- on 07.08.2019 and the remaining amount was to be repaid in installments, but the Opposite Parties have forcible taken the vehicle in question on 21.10.2020 without the information of the complainant when it was parked and at that time, the complainant kept Rs.35,000/- in the box of the said motor cycle, whereas the Opposite Parties have no right to take the said motor cycle forcibly. Said action done by the Opposite Parties is illegal, unjust and unwarranted by law. In this regard, the complainant also moved an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, but to no affect. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- The Opposite Parties may be issued necessary directions in regard to motor cycle in question to pay Rs.35,000/- and also to pay Rs.1 lakh on account of mental tension and harassment or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
2. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. It is submitted that the amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5000/- were paid by the complainant and it is denied that Rs.14,000/- was ever paid as earnest money. Even after adjustment of the sale price of Rs.28,000/- towards the motor cycle in question, an amount of Rs.22,007/- is still due towards the complainant, but to avoid the payment of such outstanding amount, the complainant has moved an application before Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga as well as filed this complaint before this District Consumer Commission. In fact, the complainant defaulted in making the payment of the instalments and when contacted, he himself gave the possession of said motor cycle to the Opposite Parties by saying that he was unable to make the payment of the instalments due. Said motor cycle was handed over by the complainant to the Opposite Parties himself. Moreover, the de-facto owner of the said motor cycle is the financier i.e. the Opposite Parties who has got ever y right over the said vehicle being its owner. It is totally wrong that the complainant had kept Rs.35,000/- in the box of the vehicle in question, it is concocted story made up by the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vazir Singh, Manager Ex.OPW/1, copy of resolution Ex.OPs1, copy of account statement Ex.OPs2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record.
6. We have perused the rival contentions of the parties. The case of the complainant is that he got this Motor Cycle bearing RC No.PB-76-A-3318 HF Deluxe Hero, Model 2018 financed from the Opposite Parties and said vehicle was purchased for approx. Rs.58,000/-. The complainant deposited dRs.14,000/- as earnest money and thereafter, he deposited Rs.15,000/- on 29.06.2019 and Rs.5,000/- on 07.08.2019 and the remaining amount was to be repaid in installments, but the Opposite Parties have forcible taken the vehicle in question on 21.10.2020 without the information of the complainant when it was parked and at that time, the complainant kept Rs.35,000/- in the box of the said motor cycle, whereas the Opposite Parties have no right to take the said motor cycle forcibly. Said action done by the Opposite Parties is illegal, unjust and unwarranted by law. In this regard, the complainant also moved an application to Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, but to no affect. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contents of the complainant on the ground that the amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5000/- were paid by the complainant and it is denied that Rs.14,000/- was ever paid as earnest money. Even after adjustment of the sale price of Rs.28,000/- towards the motor cycle in question, an amount of Rs.22,007/- is still due towards the complainant, but to avoid the payment of such outstanding amount, the complainant has moved an application before Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga as well as filed this complaint before this District Consumer Commission. In fact, the complainant defaulted in making the payment of the instalments and when contacted, he himself gave the possession of said motor cycle to the Opposite Parties by saying that he was unable to make the payment of the instalments due. Said motor cycle was handed over by the complainant to the Opposite Parties himself. Moreover, the de-facto owner of the said motor cycle is the financier i.e. the Opposite Parties who has got every right over the said vehicle being its owner. It is totally wrong that the complainant had kept Rs.35,000/- in the box of the vehicle in question, it is concocted story made up by the complainant and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Perusal of the statement of account Ex.OPs2 shows that the complainant has got financed his motor cycle in question from the Opposite Parties and took the amount of Rs.46,000/- besides Rs.13,784/- on account of interest was payable in instalments, but as per the statement, the complainant has paid only Rs.15,000/- as on 29.06.2019, Rs.4600/- as on 08.08.2019 and Rs.28,000/- as on 13.01.2021 and after debiting and crediting all the entries, still an amount of Rs.22,007/- was due and outstanding against the complainant as on 13.01.2021, but as contended above, the complainant has failed to make the outstanding amount and as such, he himself gave the possession of said motor cycle to the Opposite Parties as he was unable to make the payment of the instalments due. This averment of the Opposite Parties has nowhere denied by the complainant by filing and cogent and convincing evidence and hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:09.05.2022.
