BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.118 of 2014

Date of Instt. 11.4.2014

Date of Decision :21.11.2014

Bhaskera Nand aged about 50 years son of Babu ram R/o H.No.BXXX/7, Near Temple Sudan, Kapurthala.

..........Complainant

Versus

Cargo Motors Pvt, Ltd, through its Manager/Officer concerned, Cargo House, BSF Chowk, GT Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.AK Gandhi Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AM Singh Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that complainant purchased a car model Tata Indica Vista VX QJET from the showroom of the opposite party on 5.12.2011. At the time of purchasing the said car, a lump sump amount of Rs.24,000/- was taken by the concerned official of the opposite party for issuance of registration certificate with a promise that any excess/deficient amount will be adjusted later on at the time of delivery of the registration certificate. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of taking such amount by the opposite party from the complainant, the wife and friend of the complainant accompanied him at that time and the said amount was paid in their presence. After purchase of the car the complainant several times visited the office of the opposite party in January 2012 to mid of the February 2012 and also inquired through phone regarding the preparation of the registration certificate, but every time the official of the opposite party assured the complainant that the registration certificate would be delivered to the complainant when they would receive the same from the DTO office and linger on the matter on one pretext or other. In the last week of February 2012 the receipt regarding registration certificate was delivered to the complainant on his visit and opposite party informed the complainant that there are other charges which were deposited by the opposite party in the office of the DTO and the receipt regarding the same and registration certificate will be provided to the complainant latter on. Thereafter in the month of the March 2012 and April 2012 the complainant several times visited the office of the opposite party regarding registration certificate and for the receipt of other chargers deposited by the opposite party in DTO office. In the last week of the April 2012 when the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and made several request to official of opposite party to deliver the registration certificate alongwith the receipt regarding the fee deposited in the DTO office, they adviced the complainant to visit the DTO office and to inquire about the registration certificate. Then as per the direction of the opposite party the complainant visited the office of the DTO. At the time of taking of the registration certificate from the DTO office, the complainant came to know that only a sum of Rs.9992/- as fee of registration certificate was charged by the DTO office and sum of Rs.700/- as hypothecation/society chargers were paid by the opposite party. Thus in this way a total sum of Rs.10,700/- was deposited/paid by the opposite party whereas the opposite party had taken a sum of Rs.24,000/- from the complainant for the said purpose. Thereafter the complainant several times visited the office of the opposite party for the refund of the remaining amount of Rs.13,300/- but in-spite of assurances given in this regard, by the officials of the opposite party, for refunding the said amount, nothing was done by the opposite party. That earlier also the complainant filed a complaint but the same was withdrawn by the complainant due to technical defect with permission to file fresh on 18.3.2014. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.13,300 alongwith interest till the date of payment. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, complainant being not consumer, estoppel, limitation etc. On merits it pleaded that no amount Rs.24000/- was paid by the complainant as alleged. No amount is due from the opposite party to the complainant. It denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW/1 along with copies of documents Ex. C1 to C10 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.OP1, Ex.OP2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Counsel for complainant contended that opposite party received Rs.24000/- from him as registration charges but on inquiry it was found that they have only deposited Rs.9992 as fee for registration certificate and further a sum of Rs.700/- as hypothecation charges. He contended that the opposite party has received Rs.13,300/- in excess. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite party contended that no amount of Rs.24000/- on account of registration charges was ever received by the opposite party and the opposite party has only received Rs.9992/- plus Rs.500/- for registration charges and hypothecation fees. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The opposite party has produced copy of ledger account wherein there is no entry of Rs.24000/-. On the other hand, there is an entry of Rs.10492/- on account of payment to transport department for RC. Ex.OP-4 are receipts regarding Rs.10492/-(Rs.9992 plus Rs.500/-). The complainant has not produced any receipt regarding the amount of Rs.24000/- alleged to have been received by the opposite party as registration charges. However, he has filed affidavit of Sumit Sharma and his wife Loveleen Bhasker regarding the payment of Rs.24000/- to the opposite party on account of registration charges. The name of Sumit Sharma does not find mention in the complaint. In absence of any documentary evidence, the oral evidence regarding payment of Rs.24000/- to the opposite party as registration charges can not be accepted. The present complaint was filed on 10.4.2014 and whereas the car purchased on 5.12.2011. So payment of registration charges of Rs.24000/- is alleged to have been made to the opposite party on 5.12.2011. In order to bring the complaint within limitation the complainant has alleged that in the last week of April 2012 when the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and made several request to official of opposite party to deliver the registration certificate alongwith the receipt regarding the fee deposited in the DTO office, they advice the complainant to visit the DTO office and to inquire about the registration certificate and then as per the direction of the opposite party the he visited the office of the DTO and at the time of taking of the registration certificate from the DTO office, the complainant came to know that only a sum of Rs.9992/- as fee of registration certificate was charged by the DTO office. As mentioned in para 9 of the complaint, the complainant has earlier filed a complaint and withdrawn the same with permission to file fresh one on 18.3.2014. We have gone through the file of the earlier complaint and in that complaint, complainant has pleaded that he visited the opposite party for the refund of remaining amount of Rs.11,300/- but in-spite of assurance given in this regard, nothing was done by the opposite party which force the complainant to write the letter to the opposite party on 21.3.2012 with a request of refund the aforesaid amount. In the present complaint, the complainant has mentioned anything regarding letter dated 21.3.2012. So at least on 21.3.2012 or before it, he came to know that excess of amount of Rs.13,300/- has been received by the opposite party on account of registration charges. The present complaint which has been filed on 10.4.2014 is clearly time barred from the above said date. So on this score also, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

21.11.2014 Member President