Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/66/2020

Sukhjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dharminder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

N S Toor

14 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                    COMMISSION

                                FATEHGARH SAHIB

Complaint No.	:	CC/66/2020
Date of Institution	:	19/10/2020
Date of Decision	:	14/07/2023

 

Sukhjeet Singh aged about 22 years, son of Sh. Major Singh, resident of village Chanalon, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali .                                                                                                 

                                                                ………....Complainant

                                        Versus

1.  Dharminder Singh son of Sh.Gurdeep Singh, resident of House no.103,Ward no.3, Brahman Majra(Sirhind), Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. Gurpreet Singh son of Sh. Jawinder Singh, R/o House no.313, Dashmesh Nagar, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Perfect Car Deals, Jyoti Sarup Chowk, Sirhind, through its Proprietor Jatinderpal Singh.

                                                                …………..opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019

Quorum

Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Present: None  for complainant.

     Sh.B.S.Boparai, counsel for Ops no.1 and 2.

     OP no.3 Ex-Parte vide order dated 9.9.2021

         

Order by

MS.SHIVANI  BHARGAVA, MEMBER

The complaint has been filed against the OPs (opposite parties)  under Section 35of Consumer Protection Act-2019 alleging deficiency in service with the prayer to give directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment .

2.  The brief facts of the complaint are that the  complainant  purchased a car from perfect car deals i.e OP3 in January,2020 for Rs.5,25,000/-. OP3  showed a Toyata Etios Liva Car  bearing registration no.PB-05-AE-9600 to the complainant and assured that car is non-accidental & non-painted. Complainant paid Rs.4,30,000/- in cash to Ops. He promised to pay the remaining amount after  some time  and  gave his post dated cheque no.009689 of Axis Bank for the remaining amount .  In the last week of September ,2020, the complainant   visited CM Auto, Ropar for the service of the above said car, there he came to know that the car in question  is accidental car and Ops sold accidental car to the complainant. Complainant asked them to return the amount paid for the car.  Ops refused to do so. Hence , this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs through registered Post. OPs1,2 appeared  through their Counsel and filed joint  written version. OP3 did not appear despite service of summons and proceeded against Ex-Parte vide order dated 9.9.2021.
4. The OPs 1,2 contested the complaint and  filed written version raising various legal  objections that  the complainant had visited the office of OP no.3 on 9.1.2020. The registered owner of the Toyota Etios Liva Car no.PB-05AE-9600  was Parwinder Singh son of Sh.Jarnail Singh resident of Preet Nagar, Ferozepur, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.  The OP no.2 had purchased this car from said Parwinder Singh.   The complainant took a test ride of the car and also got it checked mechanically.  Complainant  paid only Rs.5,03,000/- to OP3 and remaining amount of Rs.22,000/- is still due towards the complainant. , In the month of July 2020, the complainant further told the OP no.1 that he has caused accident with the car in question  and the complainant told the OPno.1 that he will not be able to pay the remaining  amount due to accident . Hence Ops no.1 and 2 have prayed for  dismissal of complaint.
5.                The complainant in support of his complaint produced his affidavit along with documents i.e receipts  Ex.C1 and Ex.C2
6. In rebuttal the Ops no.1 and 2 tendered in evidence Ex.OP1 affidavit of Dharminder Singh, Ex.OP2 affidavit of Gurpreet Singh , Photographs of Chat Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP7 and closed their evidence.
7. Heard. Entire record has been perused
8. Admittedly, the complainant purchased second hand car from OPs as per Ex.C1. Complainant  alleged that OP sold him accidental car and had deliberately not disclosed about the condition of the car. He got to know  about it only after he took the car to service.  The main grouse of the complainant  was that OPs sold him accidental car.
9.  From the perusal of the record it emerges out that  complainant has  failed to prove on  record any expert report regarding the accidental condition  of the car. Mere saying is not sufficient to say with complaint. It is established law that what is alleged must be proved by cogent & convincing evidence. The complainant can not stake  his claim merely on conjectures & surmises. It is thus held that complainant failed to prove his complaint.
10. As a corollary of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in this complaint  & same is here by dismissed with  no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and the OPs as per rules. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to paucity of staff. File be  consigned to record room.

       Pronounced 14 July 2023                               

                                                   (S. K. Aggarwal)

                                                             President

                                                                    

    

                                                           (Shivani Bhargava)

                                                                 Member

 

                                                             (Sh. Manjit Singh Bhinder )

                                                                          Member