Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that on the allurement of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the complainant purchased one vehicle i.e. Bajaj Platina 100 CC, bearing RC No.PB-10-GG-4633 (Temp), Model 2017 for Rs.46897/- from Opposite Party No.2 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 vide invoice dated 18.05.2017. Said purchase was against the exchange offer and at that time, the complainant exchanged his Bajaj Pulsur 180 CC, model 2009 motor cycle with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 which was valued for Rs.8000/- and received Rs.7000/- in cash thus in total the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 received Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and remaining amount was to be received in installments. Thereafter, the complainant got insured the new purchased vehicle vide policy No. OG-18-1217-1802-0000-7665 dated 18.05.2017 valid upto 17.05.2018, but after the purchase of the said vehicle, on the very next date when the complainant started plying the vehicle, then the complainant suffered some technical defects in the engine of the vehicle and gear of the said vehicle became out of function (jam). The complainant immediately brought the vehicle with Opposite Party No.2 and the officials/ technicians of Opposite Party No.2 inspected the motor cycle and did some technical works and he was astonished to see that one gear was broken and engine oil was of old (black). On coming to know this fact, the complainant raised the objections, but the officials of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 assured that the they will replace the vehicle with new one and will also compensate the complainant to which the complainant agreed. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but they always lingered on the matter on one pretext to another. Even the complainant also approached Opposite Party No.3 who is the insurance company of the vehicle, who also made false assurance to the complainant. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the vehicle with new one and Opposite Party No.3 be also directed to incur the loss as per the insurance policy and further the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation due to mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant and also to pay any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to adhere to the conditions mentioned in Operation, Maintenance and Warranty Manual provided alongwith the vehicle. The complainant had been guilty of over speeding the vehicle and as such is not entitled to any relief whatsoever from this District Consumer Commission. Actually, the complainant has concealed the material facts from this District Consumer Commission that he has got the vehicle financed through M/s.Impact Leasing Private Limited and the complainant had executed a hypothecation agreement with the said finance company and as per the terms of the said agreement, the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.7000/- as down payment and a total amount of Rs.54,240/- was calculated which was inclusive of interest and other charges and the complainant had undertaking to pay the said amount in 24 monthly instalments of Rs.2260/- each and the first instalment was payable on 20.06.2017, but the complainant has not paid even a single instalment to the said finance company and in order to avoid his liability, the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Moreover, there is no evidence in support of the allegation as brought forthwith by the complainant. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took up almost the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and close the evidence.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainants as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The case of the complainant is that from the very second day of the purchase, the vehicle in question giving starting problem as there is some technical defects in the engine of the vehicle and gear of the said vehicle became out of function (jam) and this matter was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2 and the officials/ technicians of Opposite Party No.2 inspected the motor cycle and did some technical works and he was astonished to see that one gear was broken and engine oil was of old (black) and hence, there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant has failed to adhere to the conditions mentioned in Operation, Maintenance and Warranty Manual provided alongwith the vehicle. The complainant had been guilty of over speeding the vehicle and as such is not entitled to any relief whatsoever from this District Consumer Commission. Actually, the complainant has concealed the material facts from this District Consumer Commission that he has got the vehicle financed through M/s.Impact Leasing Private Limited and the complainant had executed a hypothecation agreement with the said finance company and as per the terms of the said agreement, the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.7000/- as down payment and a total amount of Rs.54,240/- was calculated which was inclusive of interest and other charges and the complainant had undertaking to pay the said amount in 24 monthly instalments of Rs.2260/- each and the first instalment was payable on 20.06.2017, but the complainant has not paid even a single instalment to the said finance company and in order to avoid his liability, the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint. There is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle. But do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Perusal of the agreement arrived between the parties Ex.C1 shows that in regard to vehicle in question, a written agreement/ settlement was made on 18.08.2017 in Punjabi language, the translation of which in English language as follows:-
Panchayti Agreement dated: 18.08.2017.
That about three months ago, Sukhdev Singh son of Mohan Singh resident of Basraon took one motor cycle Platina from our agency Impact Agencies Pvt Limited, Raikot, in which some defect occurred and due to this reason, Sukhdev Singh aforesaid brought the motor cycle before us. The Manager present there, finally settled in written for making Rs.15,000/- to Sukhdev Singh, but due to some reason, that agreement could not be matured and the motor cycle is lying in agency since then. Now aforesaid Sukhdev Singh made an application before SSP Office, Jagraon with regard to motor cycle in question. During investigation, it was agreed between agency and Sukhdev Singh that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is to be given to Sukhdev Singh upto 10.09.2017 and thereafter nothing will remain due against each other. After receiving the money, the RC and motor cycle will be the ownership of Impact Agencies Private Limited, Raikot. With regard to amount of Rs.10,000/-, a separate receipt will be taken from Sukhdev Singh. This agreement is executed between the parties with their free will and consent and without any pressure.
Signed by the parties alongwith their Mobile Number.”
As per the aforesaid agreement (Ex.C1) arrived between the parties in written, both the parties are bound with the terms and conditions of this agreement. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties have not denied the aforesaid written agreement arrived between the parties and hence, both the parties are bound with the terms of the agreement Ex.C1 arrived between the parties dated 18.08.2017.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the agreement dated 18.08.2017 (Ex.C1) arrived between the parties, we direct all the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of agreement i.e. 18.08.2017 till its actual realization. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
9. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
