Delhi

North East

CC/230/2018

Sh. Amardeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fair Deals Cars Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.230/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Amardeep, S/o Sh. Jagveer Singh, R/o House No. D-189, Gali No. 5, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	Fair Deals Cars Pvt. Ltd., At: Gupta Complex, 467-483, Grand Trunk Road, Uberoi Compound, Ghisa Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095   Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., At: 1st Floor & 2nd Floor, Plot No. 6, Main Pushpa Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi 110005   Regd. Office At 2nd Floor Dare House No. 2 NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

02.11.2018 11.04.2023 06.06.2023

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer  protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had purchased a commercial vehicle bearing no. DL-1Z-3273 (Swift Desire Car) from the Opposite Party No. 1 on 01.07.2015 to earn his livelihood. The Complainant made down payment of Rs. 2,04,000/- which was financed by the Opposite Party No. 2 and according to which, Complainant had to pay total 36 EMI @ Rs. 16,880/- per month from August 2015 till September 2018 to the Opposite Party No. 2 vide his loan I.D No. XVFPDSN0000144813. At the time of financing the said vehicle, Opposite Party No. 2 had taken four blank signed cheques from the Complainant as security. After that, Complainant had been paying EMI to the Opposite Party No. 2 regularly and since August 2016 Complainant had paid 14 instalments to the Opposite Party No. 2 and thereafter, due to some financial crisis Complainant could not pay two instalments of the said vehicle. The Opposite Party No. 2 took two instalments from the Complainant as such one was paid by the Complainant in cash on 09.01.2016 which was taken by the representative of the Opposite Party No. 2 but even paying the said instalment for the month of January 2016 the Opposite Party also deducted instalment amount for the same month of January 2016.In the month of December 2016 officials of Opposite party No. 2 forcibly snatched the vehicle of the Complainant at Bhajanpura, Delhi without giving any prior notice to the Complainant.  All the original documents of the vehicle in question as well as down payment bill were also kept in the said vehicle at that time. Opposite Party No. 2 sent only a pre-sale notice to the Complainant on 25.12.2016 for alleged recovery of Rs. 3,63,153/- within 7 days from the receipt of the letter. Thereafter, Opposite Party No. 2 sold the said vehicle of the Complainant for the total sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- and apart from it Opposite Party No. 2 also filed a case U/s 138 NI Act, against the Complainant thereby misusing his above mentioned security cheque bearing NO. 024698 mentioning date as 21.04.2017 amount Rs. 1,65,538/- which is pending in Gurgaon Court. At the time of auctioning the said vehicle by the Opposite party No. 2 the said vehicle of the Complainant was duly insured, having insurance policy valid from 18.07.2018 to 17.07.2019 and as per said insurance policy value of the said vehicle was Rs. 4,13,700/- but the Opposite Party No. 2 sold out the same only for the sum of Rs. 2,35,000/-. The Complainant has prayed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,11,380/- towards the cost of above said vehicle along with the interest 18 % per annum from filing of the claim till its realization, to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the mental pain agony and physical harassment suffered by him and Rs. 15,000/- towards the costs and expenses of the Complainant and litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 despite notice severed. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.04.2022.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated in the reply that the complaint is not maintainable and it is alleged that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite Party No. 2 has denied all the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. However, after filing the written statement the Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.04.2022.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2

5.  The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.
7. The Opposite Party No. 2 has filed the written statement but did not led any evidence.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased a vehicle made swift desire. As per his version, the Opposite Party No. 2 has financed the down payment of Rs. 2,04,000/-. The case of the Complainant is that he was supposed to pay 36 EMIs to Opposite Party No. 2 @ 16,480/- per month from August 2015 to September 2018. At the time of financing of the said vehicle, the Opposite Party No. 2 has taken four blank cheques signed by the Complainant for security purpose. The Complainant paid 14 installments to Opposite Party No. 2 and thereafter due to financial crises he could not pay two installments. The installment for the month of January 2016, the Complainant paid the same in cash on 09.01.2016 to the representative of Opposite Party No. 2. However, the said installment was also received by the Opposite Party No. 2 by presenting his cheque by misusing the same.
9. The case of the Complainant is that in the month of December 2016 the official of the Opposite Party No. 2 has forcibly snatched his vehicle along with the documents. It is important to note that regarding snatching the vehicle the Complainant has not lodged any complaint etc. before the police or any other authority. The forcible snatching of a vehicle is an offence and therefore, the Complainant was supposed to lodge a complaint with the police regarding snatching of the vehicle. In the present case, the Complainant did not lodge any complaint with the police nor he has led any other evidence to support his contention. Therefore, this plea of the Complainant cannot be accepted.
10. It is also the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No. 2 has misused the cheques given by him to the Opposite Party No. 2 at the time of taking the loan and the said cheques were given to the Opposite Party No. 2 for the purpose of “Security”. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act regarding the dishonor of the cheque. The said complaint is pending in a court at Gurgaon. Thus, it is clear that the case pertaining to the cheques issued by the Complainant is sub-judice and therefore it cannot be said at this stage that the cheques issued by the Complainant has been misused by the Opposite Party No. 2. Therefore, this plea of the Complainant cannot be accepted.
11. Further, the case of the Complainant is that Opposite Party No. 2 has sold his vehicle at a low price i.e. Rs. 2,35,000/- whereas the IDV value of the vehicle was Rs. 4,13,700/-. The Complainant has not led any evidence when the vehicle was sold and to whom it was sold. Complainant has filed photocopy of the registration certificate of the vehicle and the same shows that the vehicle in question is in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant has failed to led any evidence that the vehicle has been sold by the Opposite Party No. 2 at a low price cannot be accepted.
12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.
13.  Order announced on 06.06.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)