Delhi

East Delhi

CC/262/2013

RAVINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMPETENT AUTO - Opp.Party(s)

09 May 2017

ORDER

           DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.        262/2013

                                                                                                   Date of Institution               18/04/2013

                                                                                                   Order reserved on               09/05/2017        

                                                                                                   Date of Order                       11/05/2017                                                                                     

 

In matter of

Mr Ravinder Kumar, adult   

s/o Sh Havali Ram   

R/o- J 79, Adhyapak Nagar,

Nagloi, New Delhi 110041 ……………………………………….….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

 

1-M/s Manager,

Competent Automobiles   

Cpmpetent House, plot no. 3 

Gazipur, Delhi 110091

 

2-M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd

A-193, Okhala Industrial Area Phase I

New Delhi 110020………………………………………..….…………..Opponents

 

Quorum   Sh Sukhdev  Singh       President

                  Dr P N Tiwari                 Member

                  Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainant purchased Maruti Wagon R for a taxi purpose for a sum of Rs 4,31,800/ from OP1/Competent Automobiles and the same vehicle was financed by OP2/M/s Magma Fincorp Ltd. for Rs 2,98,219/-with monthly installment of Rs 8451/pm. The complainant paid a sum of Rs 1,51,800/- from his own pocket as marked Ex. CW1/1, 2 and 3.   

Complainant stated that OP 2 intentionally issued a cover note for a Rs 18219/-for commercial purpose. Later on after about 7 months, complainant received policy documents showing premium of Rs 12572/- for running his vehicle for private use. So, complainant visited OP2 office to change the tariff from private use to commercial use by submitting an application.

But OP2 did not change the tariff plan from private use to commercial use whereas complainant was plying his vehicle for commercial use.  

Complainant felt harassed and cheated for the unfair trade practice adopted by OP2, so filed this complaint praying for issuing direction to change the tariff plan from private use to commercial use and also claimed for refund of excess amount charged by OP 2 with compensation of Rs 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony with Rs 5000/- as litigation charges.

Notices were served. OP1 submitted written statement denying all the allegations of complainant. OP submitted that the said vehicle was purchased for a commercial purpose as Radio Taxi so complainant was not a genuine consumer under Section 2(1)(d)ii of the Consumer Protection Act and so the complainant was not maintainable before this Hon. Forum and the same may be dismissed.  Thus complainant had not approached with clean hand for any relief from the Forum. It was also submitted that OP2 had charged his own charges for getting the said vehicle insured from National Insurance Co. along with premium of policy as the vehicle was hypothecated in the name of OP2. So there was no unfair trade practice at all adopted by OP2.

It was further submitted by OP2 that OP1 had no role in issuing the policy or giving financing the vehicle so there was no liability of OP1. Complainant had written an application to OP2 to changing tariff of private use to commercial use as he was plying his vehicle as commercial use. The said application was on record as marked OPW1/1.  It was also submitted by OP2 that complainant was regularly paying his monthly installments and had cleared his loan amount also.

Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidence on affidavit and affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidence submitted by him were correct and true. OP also filed their evidence on affidavit through Mr Surender Singh, Manager Showroom at OP1 office who affirmed on oath that the facts and evidence submitted before this Hon. Forum were true and correct and complainant was not a genuine consumer as per the Act. So, this complaint may be dismissed.  

Arguments were heard from both the parties and order was reserved.

 

 

After going through all the facts and evidences on record, it was observed that complainant was playing his vehicle as commercial use and no where he ever stated that he was using his vehicle for his livelihood as per the Act. As this complaint pertains to the commercial category, so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint under section 2(1)(d)ii of the Act, hence complaint is dismissed.   

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the act and file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                         Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                                                         

                                      

                                                  Shri  Sukhdev Singh  President