Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/116/2018

CHAMAN LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DOLFIN AUTOMOBILES - Opp.Party(s)

INPERSON

28 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No:                468/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    26-02-2018

 Date of Decision      :     29-05-2018

 

Dr.Chaman Lal,

S/O Prem Chand,

R/O 21 Ghar,Post Office

Chowki Chorah,P/S Akhnoor,

Near Govt.Middle School,Manal

Bagla Tehsil Chowki Chorah,

Distt.Jammu A/P H.No.68 Top Sherkhanian,

Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                              V/S

1.Dolfin Automobiles Bye Pass Road,

  Channi Rama,Jammu J&K Authorised SSP:

  Hero Motor Corporation Ltd.

2.Shriram City Union Finance,Shivaji Chowk,

   Nanak Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

 

CORAM:-

                  Khalil Choudhary      (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                            Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

                             

Complainant in person present .

Nemo  for OPs.

 

                                            ORDER

 

                       Grievance of complainant, as disclosed in the complaint is that he purchased a Hero motor cycle,Splendour Plus DRS , from  OP1,through OP2 for a sale consideration of Rs.52,350/-plus other charges i.e.Rs.20,000/-on, 23-05-2017 and the motorcycle was financed by said Finance Company he was paying regular instalments to said company for a period of 24 months @ Rs.2190/-per month. Complainant submitted that he had been paying regular instalments since May,2017 and till date he had liquidated the loan amount of Rs.39,710/-as on date and in addition to it he also made payment of Rs.6,000/-for R.C.with the said Finance Company. Allegation of complainant is that from the date of purchase of said vehicle he had not been handed over the RC of the said vehicle by the OPs That the complainant is serving in Delhi as a Doctor in Health Deptt.and cannot move from Delhi to Jammu routinely as Delhi is very far from Jammu and till date he had spent more than Rs.20,000/-on fares. Complainant further submitted that he repeatedly approached OPs telephonically, as well as, personally for delivery of RC,but did not yield any fruitful result. Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays for compensation, for deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.78,000/-under different heads.

Notices were sent to the Ops alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but Ops did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so their right to file written version stands closed vide order dated 01-05-2018 and the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in support of the complaint.

            The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Rajeev Kumar Sharma. The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice and copy of detail.

                     We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

                       Briefly stated case of complainant is that; he purchased a Hero motor cycle,Splendour Plus DRS , from  OP1,through OP2 for a sale consideration of Rs.52,350/-plus other charges i.e.Rs.20,000/-on, 23-05-2017 and the motorcycle was financed by said Finance Company he was paying regular instalments to said company for a period of 24 months @ Rs.2190/-per month. Complainant submitted that he had been paying regular instalments since May,2017 and till date he had liquidated the loan amount of Rs.39,710/-as on date and in addition to it he also made payment of Rs.6,000/-for R.C.with the said Finance Company, but till date despite repeated requests, RC had not been delivered to him.

                        The complainant in his own affidavit and affidavit of Rajeev Kumar Sharma have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by the affidavit of complainant, and affidavit of Rajeev  Kumar Sharma so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complainant in complaint. This is a case of deficiency in service. The Ops despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence in rebuttal. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                  In addition complainant has also supported the averments contained in the complaint by duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavit of Rajeev Kumar Sharma which are corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. From perusal of averments contained in the complaint, affidavit of complainant and documents placed on record. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by Ops.

                      Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and OP1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-,respectively. The OP1 shall comply the order, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                            President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

    29-05-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

                                                                           

Ms.Vijay Angral                                               

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member