Delhi

North East

CC/373/2024

RITIKA GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BINSAR MOTORS LLP - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 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. 373/24

In the matter of:

 

	Ritika Goel, D/o Sh. Anil Kumar, R/o 631/11, Gali No. 12, Adarsh Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Binsar TVS, 954-E, Main 100Ft. Road, Babarpur Extn. Shahdara, Delhi 110053	Opposite Party

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party i.e. Binsar TVS.
2. As per the complaint filed by the Complainant, the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased the subject scooty from Opposite Party company and paid Rs. 1,02,800/- in cash on 19.05.2024. It is alleged that the Complainant purchased 2024 model while she was provided with 2023 model. It is stated that when she received Insurance copy and temporary RC, she came to know that it had less market value. It is also alleged that she was given invoice of scooty at ex-showroom price at Rs. 86,405/- in place of tax invoice of Rs.1,02,800/-. It is also alleged that after legal notice, she was provided with new tax invoice which was also not proper, thereafter, she was provided with third invoice of Rs. 1,01,344/-. The allegation of the Complainant is that all the three invoices are forged and there are many mistakes in calculations.  The Complainant has also stated that she has made complaints with DCP Office, North East Delhi as well with other authorities. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of current year model as originally agreed upon and proper tax invoice, compensation and legal action against Opposite Party.
3. Arguments on the admissibility of the complaint heard. File perused.
4. The perusal of complaint and material on record shows that the allegations of the Complainant are that Opposite Party has issued three different tax invoices for the purchase of same item which according to her are forged. It is also submitted by the Complainant that she had also lodged complaint against Opposite Party with various authorities. The perusal of the copies of those complaints relied upon by the Complainant, shows that the Complainant has alleged cheating and forgery.
5. In this context, we would like to rely upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Civil appeal No. 7289 of 2009 titled as The Chairman & Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. & ANR Vs.            R. Chandramohan dated 27.03.2023 wherein it is held that:-

“The Proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act.”

6. In view of above, we are of the considered view that since allegations of fraud, forgery and cheating are involved, this Commission is not empowered to adjudicate upon the present complaint.
7. Thus, the complaint is dismissed with no order asto costs.
8. Order announced on 02.08.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President