Delhi

West Delhi

CC/12/252

PRADEEP SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEWAN MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2019

ORDER

D ISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 252/2012

 

Sh. Pradeep Sharma

S/o Sh. S.R Sharma

R/o  M-S- Ext. 17/3 Mohan Garden

Near Rama Park Road.                                             

New Delhi                                                                     ..…. Complainant

VERSUS

Deewan Motors

C-5, Kiran Garden,

Pole No. 718

Uttam Nagar

New Delhi                                                              .…. Opposite  Party  

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant  had purchased one motor cycle ( make Bajaj Discover  125 CC)  for a sum of Rs. 45,366/-  from OP.  He had paid for insurance, road tax and RC.  The OP after charging all kinds of taxes/ charges assessed   price of  motor cycle to the tune of Rs. 53,784/- out of which complainant paid Rs. 18,500/-  by cash and also issued  08 blank   signed  cheques alongwith other documents as such ration card,  bank statement,  Driving License, Pan Card and Voter  Identity  Card.  The OP had promised to advance   loan of Rs. 35,284/- on the basis of  Pan Card and Voter Identity Card.  The OP had promised to advance loan of                   Rs. 35,284/- on interest @ of 9.5%.  After some time the OP threatened and snatched the vehicle from complainant.  The OP has committed deficiency in service in not giving document, RC, Insurance even after making full payment of the vehicle.  Hence  the present complaint. 

2.  The OP filed written statement admitting the fact that the vehicle was sold to the complainant with loan from Family Credit Ltd.  The OP also admitted that on road price of the vehicle  was Rs. 53,884/-. After making initial payment of Rs. 18,000/-  on 17.04.2012,  complainant did not make payment of Rs. 35,884/- till 20.07.2012 and after much persuasions complainant made payment of Rs. 35,000/- on 20.07.2012 which was short of Rs. 884/- .  No harassment was done to the complainant, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.     

3.     Complainant has filed replication denying contents of written statement and re-affirming the contents of complaint.  He has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint. On the other hand Sh. Brajesh Mudgal, Manager filed affidavit on behalf of the OP. He has mentioned document Ex.OPW-1/A.   

4.     We have seen the pleading and the documents.  The assessment of the price for sale of vehicle was Rs. 53,884/- as communicated vide letter of OP dated 20.07.2012.  The OP has already admitted,  that it has  received Rs. 18,000/- + 35,000/-  and further submitted that the payment  was short by Rs. 884/-. The complainant has shown another receipt dated 30.05.2012 whereby  he had deposited Rs. 900/- with OP.  If we calculate the entire payment being made by the complainant it is more than the sale price of the motor cycle.  The OP has never claimed balance of Rs. 884/- This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice whereby illiterate and innocent people are made to suffer.  

6.     Keeping in view the discussion stated above we award a sum of             Rs. 20,000/-in favour of complainant for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses against the OP. 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced this___29TH___ day of    May___ 2019.

 

( K.S. MOHI )          (S.S. SIDHU)                   (PUNEET LAMBA)                    

  PRESIDENT                 MEMBER                              MEMBER