DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.700 of 2020
Date of institution: 09.03.2020 Date of decision : 16.01.2023
Gunjan Singh wife of Shri Tarun Nikumbh, # 663, Saini Vihar, Phase-2, Baltana, Tehsil Derabassi, SAS Nagar 140604.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. through authorized representative at SCO-7, Near Royal Enfield Showroom, Garg Auto Zone, Ambala-Chandigarh Highway, Zirakpur, Punjab140603.
2. Cars24 Services Pvt. Ltd. Head Office through authorized representative, 4th Floor, Plot No.65, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana 122003.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Paramjeet Kaur, Member
Present: Shri Satish Mishra, counsel for the complainant.
OPs ex-parte.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Order
The present order of ours, will dispose of a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short) on the ground that the CC sold his car No.PB-65-AN-3823 Volkswagon, Ameo, Petrol to OP No.1 on 14.01.2020, vide Customer Application Form and token amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid to the CC by OP No.1 vide appointment ID No.1486759584. As per offer of OP No.1, the CC was to be paid Rs.3,37,700/- in total for the car by OP No.1 after making the following deductions:
Particulars | Amount | Remarks |
Offer Price (A) | 3,44,000.00 | |
Deductions (B) | 400.00 | Existing Challan |
Charges (C) | | |
Service charges | 4720.00 | Cars24 service |
Hypothecation removal | 1180.00 | Charges to get hypothecation removed |
Net payable (A-B-C) | 3,37,700.00 | |
It is further averred that as per payment receipt, the CC has paid Rs.56,850/- to OP No.1 for the entire sale transaction of the above said car, which was on loan with the HDFC Bank. The loan details are as under:
Particulars | Amount | Status |
Token | 1,000.00 | Paid |
Loan | 3,58,550.00 | Pending |
Delivery | -56,850.00 | Pending |
It is further averred that the held back bank details are as under:
Requirement | Amount | Release Condition | Action Date | Status |
Bank Loan NOC | 25,000.00 | To be released in 7 days | 03.02.2020 | Pending |
Party Peshi- Before RTO | 10,000.00 | | 13.05.2020 | Pending |
It is further averred that the above said amount of Rs.35,000/- was paid to OP No.1, which was part of Rs.56,850/- amount paid to OP No.1, for clearing the loan of said amount. It is averred that OP No.1 was supposed to make the payment after clearing the loan back to the CC within 7 days, but OP No.1 failed to do so. On hearing about the NOC blocked by the bank from OP No.1, the CC asked OP No.1 to return his car and also make a payment of Rs.56,850/-. The car was finally returned to the CC on 09.02.2020 after so many calls and personal visits of the CC to OP No.1. It is averred that the CC sold the car to OP No.1 only with an intention of simplifying the entire car sale purchase hypothecation removal process, but it turned out to be a nightmare. The allegation of the CC is that the car was delivered to the CC on 09.02.2020 and Rs.30,000/- was deducted from the amount of Rs.56,850/- paid to OP No.1, by the CC as per details given below:
Balance Payment (A) | Rs.56,850.00 |
RFC Deduction | Rs.19,098.00 |
Transportation charges | Rs.10,500.00 |
Cars24 Token Amount | Rs.1,000.00 |
Total Deduction (B) | Rs.30,598.00 |
Paid to customer | Rs.26,252.00 |
It is further averred by the CC that he backed out from the transaction only, when OP No.1 was unable to clear the loan from the bank, for which he took responsibility in the beginning of the deal. Even, when the CC enquired for the reason, OP No.1 simply excused by saying NOC blocked.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought refund of Rs.30,598/- . The CC further sought directions to the OPs to pay him a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses. Complaint of the CC is duly signed, verified and is supported by an affidavit.
2. OPs did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.02.2021.
3. In order to prove his case the CC tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.
4. We, have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the file.
5. We, have perused the complaint minutely. We feel, that the averments of the complaint are self contradictory. In Para No.11 of the complaint it is clearly mentioned that the CC backed out from the transaction only when OP No.1 was unable to clear the loan from the bank, for which he took the responsibility in the beginning. Surprisingly, no such document is attached with the complaint or any copy of the agreement, to show that the OP No.1 was supposed to clear the bank loan of the CC, which he had taken at the time of purchase of the car or took such responsibility. We have also perused one document attached by the CC at Page-16, with the complaint, marked as Ex.Z-1 by this Commission, which is also signed by the CC, wherein it is clearly mentioned in Para No.8 that the customer shall keep Cars24 and the future buyer, indemnified and exonerated from all losses, claims, risks, responsibilities, damages arising on or before the delivery of the vehicle with Cars24 i.e. OP No.1. Surprisingly, the CC has not clarified regarding this in his affidavit at the time of submitting evidence. There is no clarity in the complaint that in what manner Rs.56,850/- were given to OP No.1 by the CC. It is no where mentioned that how the CC paid Rs.56,850/- to OP No.1 and on what terms. It is not made clear that the money was paid in cash or through cheque or through demand draft by the CC to OP No.1. The CC has not made clear in the complaint that how much loan was outstanding at the time, when he was selling his car through OP No.1 and what were the terms and conditions of agreement with OP No.1 and in which agreement OP No.1 took the responsibility to clear the loan of the CC, which the CC has taken against the car in question. We have perused Ex.C-1 in which it is mentioned that the token amount of Rs.1,000/- was paid to the CC and there is outstanding loan of Rs.3,58,550/- and against the delivery column it is mentioned as minus Rs.56,850/-. Since, the complaint is not clear and requires elaborate evidence, which may require examination and cross examination of the witnesses, we feel that this Commission, which is supposed to decide the complaints in summary manner on the basis of cogent and reliable documents, is not able to give any relief to the CC or to redress his grievance, in the absence of such documents or clarity of facts in the complaint itself.
6. In view of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
January 16, 2023
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Paramjeet Kaur)
Member
