Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/70

Gursewak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fateh Motor - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 70 of 02.05.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    04.10.2019

 

Gursewak Singh son of Sh. Balbir Singh, resident of Village Samana Khurd, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Fateh Motors Sugar Mill Road, Opposite Mill Entry Gate Morinda, District Rupnagar through its proprietor.

2. Giran Automobiles NH-21, Ropar, District Ropar Punjab through its proprietor.

   ...Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Varinder Dhiman, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. H.S. Kang, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

          Complaint against O.P. No.2 stands Dismissed as withdarwn 

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1.       Gursewak Singh son of Sh. Balbir Singh, resident of Village Samana Khurd, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over the registration certificate of the vehicle in question; to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.     

2.       Brief facts made out from the complaint are that that on 15.11.2016, the complainant had purchased motor cycle make TVS from the O.P. and the same was hypothecated with Indusind Bank. He made the full and final payment to the O.Ps. at the time of purchasing the motor cycle and the O.Ps. also received the registration charges from the complainant as was duly told by the O.Ps. at the time of delivery order of the motor cycle. The O.Ps. gave assurance to him that they would provide the registration certificate within two months. After repeat was requests of the complainant, the O.Ps. did not hand over the registration certificate to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant by totally mis-stating the facts has filed the present complaint; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1; that that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is barred by limitation; that the present dispute requires sufficient evidence and trial and the same is not possible in summary trial before this Forum. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had taken all the documents for registration of the vehicle in question from the O.P. No.1 by saying that he would himself get registered the same and to that effect he issued receipt dated 25.7.2018. The vehicle in question was sold to the complainant for a sum of Rs.47,900/- and processing fee of loan of Rs.2000/- and it comes to Rs.49,900/- and out of this amount he paid in cash Rs.5000/- and amount i.e. Rs.37,950/- was received from the financer of the vehicle in question and Rs.6950/- remains due towards the complainant and he assured to make payment of the same shortly but despite the repeated demand, he failed to make the payment. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, Manager of Fateh Motors Ex.OP1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP1/B & EX.OP1/C and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.       Complainant Gursewak Singh moved this complaint through his advocate Varinder Dhiman who argued that on 15.11.2016, complainant purchased motor cycle make TVS from OP No.1 and after its purchase, it was hypothecated with Indusind Bank. After purchase, the motor cycle started creating trouble and O.P. No.1 charged the road tax for the RC also. Neither the O.P. removed the grievance of the complainant nor provided the RC as per undertaking. All these facts amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. and prayed to allow the complaint against O.P. No.1.

7.       Sh. H.S. Kang, counsel for OP No.1 argued that there is no deficiency in service. The vehicle was purchased in the month of November 2016 and the present complaint is dated 2.5.2019 and hopelessly the complaint is time barred. He further referred para No.4 of the written reply in which the price of the motor cycle is mentioned Rs.47,900/- + fee of loan file Rs.2000/- total Rs.49,900/-, out of which the complainant paid Rs.5000/- cash and Rs.37,950/- through finance whereas the remaining amount of Rs.6950/- is still pending. Moreso, on 25.7.2018, the complainant received all the documents from the O.P. No.1, which is proved through Ex.OP1/6. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

8.       It is pertinent to mention that the complaint was filed against O.Ps. No.1 & 2 but during the pendency of the complaint , complainant suffered a statement dated 28.8.2019 on the basis of which the complainant was withdrawn the complaint against OP No.2.

9.       Complainant purchased the TVS motor cycle on 15.11.2016 of the total price including loan fee is Rs.49,900/-. The complainant as well as OP No.1 admitted that at the time of purchase of the vehicle the assurance was given to the complainant for the issuance of the RC. Complainant relied upon the receipt dated 15.11.2016 and then further writing dated 25.7.2018 vide which the complainant received all the relevant documents from the OP no.1 for the issuance of the RC file. Though, the OP No.1 produced the photocopy but complainant admitted his signatures.

10.     Though, from the documents on file, it appears to be a consumer complaint but the complainant counsel still fails in proving how the complaint is within limitation. After appreciating the purchase documents as well as the reply filed by the OP No.1 then appreciating the other connected documents of insurance as well as loan. The limitation comes to an end on 14.11.2018. The present complaint is filed in the month of May 2019.

11.     To meet out the limitation period, the complainant counsel referred the statement of complainant dated 25.7.2018 and made prayer that if the said statement is considered then the complaint is within limitation as the limitation is to start w.e.f. 25.7.2018. Appreciating date of purchase, complaint is time barred, moreso, if appreciating the reply of OP No.1 then considering statement of complainant dated 25.7.2018. He received all the documents for the issuance of the RC and it is also apparant that he is not paid the balance amount of Rs.6950/- payable to the OP No.1 by the complainant for the purchase of registration of the vehicle.

12.     Complainant relied upon Ex.C1 which proves the balance amount of Rs.6950/- then minus Rs.2000/- dated 8.1.2017. Further minus Rs.2000/- dated 12.1.2017 and in the end minus Rs.1000/- dated 17.1.2017. From the scrutiny of the said deposit there is a still balance amount of Rs.2900/- outstanding payable to the OP No.1 by the complainant. At the same time, the complainant has relied upon the document Ex.C2 which proves the total price of the vehicle after deduction, Rs.44900/-. So in the light discussion made above, this forum has come to the conclusion that firstly the complaint is time barred, secondly if subsequent dealings is appreciated between the parties even then the amount remain payable by the complainant to the OP. Despite the facts he received all the documents on 25.7.201_. So the complaint is without merit and same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost. 

13. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.     

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.04.10.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER