Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/28/2016

Ms LNG Fashoin ware - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dada motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Aman Sood

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.28 of 2016

                                                        Date of institution:  02.03.2016                            

                                                           Date of decision   :  30.11.2016

M/s LNG Fashion Ware, Near Loha Market, Main Bazar, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through his Prop. Ratnish Sood.

……..Complainant

Versus

Dada Motor, Mandi Gobindgarh, VPO Harbanspura, Opposite Cheema Petrol Pump, Near Floating Restaurant Mandi Gobindgarh.

         …..Opposite party       

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member  

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

 

Present :    Sh. Neeraj Giri , Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                 

                 Sh. Anwar Hussain, Adv.Cl. for the Opposite party.

                           

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                  Complainant, M/s LNG Fashion Ware, Near Loha Market, Main Bazar, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through his Prop. Ratnish Sood, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Section 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant purchased Mahindra Jeeto from the OP, vide retail invoice dated 28.11.2015 for the sum of Rs.2,98,864/- for personal use for earning their livelihood. At the time of purchasing the said vehicle the officials of the OP did not handover the toolbox and also not installed number plate on the said vehicle. Thereafter on 30.11.2015, the complainant paid Rs.11,130/- for making registration certificate of the vehicle and Rs.20/- for installing number plate to the officials of the OP, who assured that the complainant will receive the said RC and tool box after 4/5 days.  Then after 10 days the complainant visited the office of the OP and demanded the tool box and RC of the said vehicle but the officials of the OP did not listen the genuine requests of the complainant and linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Then after 15 days, the complainant again visited the office of OP and demanded the tool box and RC but they showed their inability to deliver the RC due to Shaheedi Zor Mela. Thereafter on 08.01.2016, at about 11:30, the complainant visited the office of OP and demanded RC, tool box and number plate of the vehicle but the officials of the OP namely; Randeep Singh and Rahul demanded Rs.4000/- as commission/bribe from him. The manager of the OP namely Jagroop Singh also shouted on the complainant and asked that if the complainant has not given the said amount the RC,Tool box and number plate will not be given to him.  Thereafter when the complainant moved an application to SSP Fatehgarh Sahib regarding the said matter, the OP produced RC and tool box but after checking the same it was found that the name of the Bank, from which the complainant financed the said vehicle was wrongly mentioned and the OP showed its inability to correct the said name of the bank in the said RC. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.1,80,000/- as loss suffered by the complainant, Rs.24,000/- as salary paid for hiring driver by the complainant, Rs.50,000/- as damages and compensation and Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges.

3.               The complaint is contested by the OP.  In reply to the complaint it raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the OP; the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious having no iota of truth therein; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As regards to the facts of the complaint, it stated OP never issues any tool box or number plates to any purchaser of the vehicle, rather the tool kit is provided to the purchaser of the vehicle and temporary number is also issued to the purchaser of the vehicle. At the time of purchase of vehicle the tool kit was handed over to the complainant and number plate was to be installed by the complainant himself.  It is further stated that OP duly appeared before the SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib and disclosed him the true picture and after listening its version, the said SSP found no fault on the part of OP. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.               In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of certificate Ex. C-2, copy of letter to SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib Ex. C-3, copy of RC Ex. C-4, copy of retail invoice Ex. C-5, copy of receipt voucher Ex. C-6, copy of inquiry report dated 23.01.2016 Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Indermohanpal Singh Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. authorization letter Ex. OP-2, ledger account Ex. OP-3, invoice Ex. OP-4, vehicle order taking form Ex. OP-5, certificate of temporary number Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence.

5.               The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased the vehicle, Mahindra Jeeto, vide retail invoice dated 28.11.2015 for Rs.2,98,864/- and Rs.11,130/- was paid for registration of the vehicle and Rs.20/- for installing number plate. But the OP has not delivered to him the RC, tool box and number plate of the vehicle. The complainant visited the office of the OPs many times for this purpose but in vain. The OP never raised demand of any pending amount/dues of the vehicle. Even complaint was also filed with the police authorities. Thus, the OP has intentionally harassed the complainant and indulged in unfair trade practice and provided deficiency in service. Due to all these, the complainant has suffered a lot both financially and mentally. The Ld. counsel thus pleaded for acceptance of his complaint and penalizing the OPs.

6.               On the other hand the Ld. counsel for the OP argued that there is no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice on its part. It had provided all the best services to the complainant for purchase of the vehicle. The price of the vehicle was Rs.2,98,864/-, Rs.500/- was for temporary registration number and Rs.12,950/- as registration charges, total Rs.3,12,314/-. Against this amount the complainant had paid Rs.3,10,002/-. Thus a sum of Rs.2,312/- was still pending against the complainant. The complainant was repeatedly requested to pay the balance amount, but he did not pay the same. Ultimately the company recovered the amount of Rs.2,312/- from the sales executive of the company Mr. Manpreet Singh, who dealt with the complainant regarding sale of the vehicle. Regarding the wrong entry of the name of financing bank, it was on the part of the government registering authorities and the OP has nothing to do with that.  OP has rightly mentioned the correct name of the financing bank as 'Corporation Bank' as was evident from Ex. C-5 and Ex. OP-4. Even then the OP got the correct entry done on the RC from the License and Registration Authority. The present complaint is simply an abuse and misuse of process of law.  The Ld. counsel pleaded for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost for unnecessarily dragging the OP to litigation.

7.               After hearing the Ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the complainant. The OP has failed to deliver the RC of the vehicle, tool box/kit and number plate.

8.               In view of our above discussions, we partly accept the present complaint and find that the OP has committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice by not giving to the complainant the toolbox/kit; RC of the vehicle and the number plate in time.

9.               Accordingly, we direct the OP to:

a) Deliver to the complainant the RC of the Vehicle, toolbox/kit and number plate if they have already not been given.

b)   Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4,000/-(Four Thousands) as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also for mental agony and harassment including cost of litigation.

The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the orders. If the order is not complied within the stipulated period, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount till its realization.

10.             The arguments on the complaint were heard on 29.11.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 30.11.2016

                                                                                (Veena Chahal)

Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)

Member