| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 67 of 6-3-2018 Decided on : 04-07-2023 Rupinder Mittal S/o Vinod Kumar R/o #712-B, Arya Nagar, Near Dr. Vandana Hospital Wali Gali, Bathinda. Minni Singhal D/o Vinod Kumar now Wife of Aman Singhal R/o #A/47, Jain Park, Matiala Road, Gali No.3, Near Machanda Coal Depot D.K. Mohan Garden Uttam Nagar West Delhi Seema Singla D/o Vinod kumar now wife of Kamal Kant Singla R/o #299, Talanga wall Gali, Bhadra Bazar, Sirsa, Haryana.
........Complainants Versus Brar Scooters, 2765-B, Near Tinkoni Bathinda Through its Managing Director/MD/Manager/Prop. .......Opposite party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainants : Sh. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate. For opposite party : Sh. A.S. Sekhon, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Vinod Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( Now C.P. Act, 2019 here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this forum (Now Commission) against Brar Scooters (here-in-after referred to as opposite party). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Activa 4G bearing Chassis/Frame No.ME4JF507G11C 98782, Engine No.JF50E85098724 model 2017 on 24.8.2017 for Rs.50,732/- and amount of Rs.7,268/- for preparation of Registration certificate, Insurance and Accessories was also paid to the opposite party. The opposite party issued temporary number for a period of one month. As per directions of the opposite party, the complainant deposited/paid the registration charges on the day of purchase of Activa, but the opposite party did not provide the R.C. of said Activa till date despite repeated requests of the complainant to the opposite party. It is alleged that due to said grudge, the opposite party also refused to give free service to the Activa of the complainant except only one free service. Even more than 7 months have been lapsed, but the opposite party has not issued the RC to the complainant and due to non issuance of R.C. of the Activa, the same is lying parked in the house of the complainant. The complainant alleged that due to aforesaid act and conduct and carelessness of the opposite party, he has suffered great mental tension, agony botheration harassment and also financial/business loss, for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to issue the R.C of the Activa 4G to the complainant and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment in addition to Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint as the complainant has no concern with the Honda Activa in dispute and the same was never sold by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant also never paid any amount for the same to the opposite party rather the said vehicle is one of stolen vehicles of the opposite party regarding which FIR NO.186 dated 7.9.2017 u/s 420/ 408/381/411/34/120-B IPC has been got registered by opposite party in P.S. Civil Lines, Bathinda against the concerned officials of the opposite party and others but the vehicle in question bearing Engine No.JF50E85098724 and Chassis No.ME4JF507G11C 98782 was not traceable and could not be recovered by the police and the opposite party came to know about the possession of the complainant over the said vehicle and the opposite party reserves its right to get the possession of the said vehicle with the help of police and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his act and conduct and the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands rather he has intentionally concealed the material facts and has twisted the facts as per his own convenience. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the opposite party has denied that the complainant paid any alleged amount to the opposite party or that the complainant deposited Rs.7268/- with the opposite party for preparation of registration certificate of the vehicle in question in the name of the complainant as alleged. It is also specifically denied that the complainant deposited total Rs.58,000/- with the opposite party or that the opposite party issued temporary number for one month regarding the vehicle in question as alleged rather the opposite party never sold the vehicle in question to any person including the complainant rather the said vehicle is one of the stolen vehicles of the opposite party which were stolen and embezzled by some officials of the opposite party regarding which a case.FIR NO.186 dated 7.9.2017 u/s 420/408/381/411/34/120-B IPC has been got registered by opposite party in P.S. Civil Lines, Bathinda against the concerned officials of the opposite party and others. In further reply, the opposite party reiterated its version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 17.7.2018 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh, Manager dated 25.10.2018 (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5). It is pertinent to mention there that during the pendency of complaint, Vinod Kumar complainant expired and his LRs were ordered to be brought on record vide order dated 8-6-2022 of this Commission. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased one Activa 4 G Scooter from the opposite party vide Tax Invoice Ex. C-3 and the said scooter was insured vide policy Ex. C-4. It is further argued that complainant had also paid Rs. 7268/- to the opposite party for preparation of registration certificate, insurance and accessories but inspite of elapse of considerable time, opposite party failed to provide RC of the said Activa to the complainant and due to non-availability of the RC, Scooter cannot be plied by the complainant and is parked useless in the house of the complainant and the act of the opposite paty amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party argued that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint as complainant has no concern with the Honda Activa in dispute rather the said scooter is one of the stolen vehicle/scooter of the opposite party regarding which FIR No. 186 Ex. OP-1/3 stands registered against employees of the opposite party. It is further argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that opposite party has already taken custody of all the stolen scooter through process of court on sapurdari and had sought permission of Hon'ble Court to sell all the 14 Activa Scooter recovered by police and as per order dated 13-12-2017 passed by Sh. Vikrant Kumar, PCS, CJM, Bathinda, copy of which is Ex. OP-1/2, opposite party was given permission to sell the vehicles. It is also argued that scooter involved in the present complaint was also one of the stolen scooters and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The learned counsel for the opposite party further argued that out of all the 14 scooters one of the alleged purchaser Ramesh Kumar also filed complaint before this Commission which was allowed vide order dated 18-10-2018 and on appeal being filed, the said appeal was dispose of by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh, vide First Appeal No. 656 of 2018 decided on 14-8-2019 whereby Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, had come to the conclusion that dispute involved in the present case cannot be adjudicated in summary manner by Consumer Commission and accordingly complaint be dismissed and said complainant was given liberty to approach competent civil court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. After close scrutiny of the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission, without going into merits of the case, is of the view that since the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh, has already dismissed the complaint of one of the 14 alleged purchasers of Activa scooters and given liberty to the complainant in that case to approach the competent civil court and as such, this Commission is of the view that since the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh, has already given its opinion regarding inability of Consumer Commission to decide the controversy/dispute involved in the present case and since the complainant is also one of the purchaser of mentioned stolen scooters, in similar situation, thus falls under the same category. In view of the above discussions, this Commission has no other option than to dismiss the present complaint in view of the aforesaid order of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh. Accordingly, present complaint is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is given liberty to file the case before competent court of law having jurisdiction. The complainant is at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, before competent civil court. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced 04-07-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh ) Member
| |
