Punjab

Sangrur

CC/229/2018

Mohinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganpati Car Bazaar and Finance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Saurav Garg

07 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 229

 Instituted on:   09.05.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     07.12.2023

 

Mohinder Singh aged about 47 years son of Late Sh. Jeet Singh, R/O House No.57, Mangwal Colony, Mangwal, Sangrur.

                                                         …. Complainant 

                                                 Versus

1.             Ganpati Car Bazaar and Finance Company, Near Eicher Tractor Agency, Sunam through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.             Suresh Kumar son of Pardeep Kumar, R/O H.No.41, Street No.10, New Kundanpuri, Ludhiana.

3.             AU Small Finance Bank HO : H-1/100B, OPP. Teleperformance, Near Galaxy Cinema, Mansarover RIICO Area, Jaipur-302020 Rajasthan India.

4.             Jatinderpal son of Naseeb Chand R/o Village Himmatana, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

For the OP 1              :       Shri Vinay Kumar Jindal, Adv.

For the OP 2              :       Exparte.

For the OP 3              :       Shri Naresh Juneja, Adv.

For the OP 4              :       Shri Satbir Singh, Adv.

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

                        Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:

 

1.             Shri Mohinder Singh, complainant  has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant purchased a TATA ACE vehicle on 5.9.2016 owned by OP number 2 through OP number 1 as the OP number 1 is doing the business of sale and purchase of used vehicles at Sunam. The vehicle in question was bearing registration number PB-10-EH-5378 and purchased for a consideration of Rs.2,20,000/-, out of which Rs.20,000/- was paid in cash and one Mahindra Maximo earlier owned by complainant was given in exchange which was valued at Rs.80,000/- and there was a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- and the loan was transferred in the name of complainant. Further case of complainant is that the RC was later on transferred to the name of complainant,  thereafter the complainant started to use the vehicle and was shocked to see that the said vehicle suffers from many defects and the complainant got checked and repaired the vehicle by paying Rs.5200/- to Dhanjal Mechanical Works. Thereafter the complainant tried to use the vehicle and then there was again problem in the vehicle and spent an amount of Rs.3500/- on its repair. The complainant again got checked the vehicle and spent an amount of Rs.2940/-, Rs.1850/- and Rs.3000/- on its repairs, but it did not work.  Thereafter the complainant again took the vehicle to workshop where the complainant was shocked to know that the entire engine of the vehicle has been changed and engine number shown on RC is different from the engine number of the vehicle.  Further it is averred that the complainant thereafter approaches the OPs and brought this fact to the knowledge of the OPs, but nothing was done.  It is further averred that since the vehicle was financed by OP number 3 and the vehicle was not in working condition, as such the complainant could not deposit the instalments of loan and OP number 3 took the vehicle from the complainant and sold it further to OP number 4.  After selling the vehicle to OP number 4, Rs.62010/- is still due towards OP number 3  and the OP number 3 has written letter dated 27.2.2018 stating that the OP number 3 will take steps to recover this amount of Rs.62010/- from the complainant.  Further it is averred that the RC has been transferred in the name of OP number 4. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund Rs.2,20,000/- being cost of the vehicle and further to refund Rs.16490/- spent on its repairs alongwith interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complaint is bad for non joinder of the parties and the jurisdiction of this Commission is also disputed. On merits, it is denied that OP number 1 is doing the business of sale and purchase of the used vehicles. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from OP number 2 and the OP number 1 was  only the witness and the OP number 1 has no knowledge about the engine number of the vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant. The vehicle was got financed from the OP number 3 and when the complainant failed to deposit the instalments of loan with the OP number 3, then OP number 3 took the possession of the vehicle from the complainant and sold it to OP number 4. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 4, Legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP number 4 into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the OP number 4 purchased the vehicle from OP number 3. However, it is denied that the OP number 4 has any concern either with the complainant or with the OPs. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Record shows that OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

6.             We have perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that the complainant purchased a TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration number PB-10-EH-5378 for a consideration of Rs.2,20,000/- on 5.9.2016 owned by OP number 2 through OP number 1 as the OP number 1 is doing the business of sale and purchase of used vehicles at Sunam, out of which Rs.20,000/- was paid in cash and one Mahindra Maximo earlier owned by complainant was given in exchange which was valued at Rs.80,000/- and there was a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- and the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant. Further the learned counsel has argued that thereafter the complainant started to use the vehicle and was shocked to see that the said vehicle suffers from many defects and the complainant got checked and repaired the vehicle by spending a total sum of Rs.16,490/- from different repairers, as is evident from the copies of the bills on record Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10. Further it is argued by the learned counsel that thereafter the complainant again took the vehicle to workshop where the complainant was shocked to know that the entire engine of the vehicle has been changed and engine number shown on RC is different from the engine number of the vehicle. Though the complainant approached the OPs so many times for refund of the amount, but all in vain. 

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has argued vehemently that OP number 1 is not doing the business of sale and purchase of the used vehicles. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from OP number 2 and the OP number 1 was only the witness and the OP number 1 has no knowledge about the engine number of the disputed vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant. The vehicle was got financed from the OP number 3 and when the complainant failed to deposit the instalments of loan with the OP number 3, then OP number 3 took the possession of the vehicle from the complainant and sold it to OP number 4. Any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 has been denied and prayed dismissal of complaint qua OP number 1. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

9.             The learned counsel for the OP number 4 has admitted that OP number 4 purchased the vehicle from OP number 3. However, it is denied that the answering OP number 4 has any concern either with the complainant or with the OPs. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.            After perusal of the file and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant had purchased the used vehicle from Suresh Kumar, OP number 2 which was got financed from OP number 3.  Though the complainant has alleged that the OP number 2 sold the complainant defective vehicle which was got repaired so many times, as is evident from the copies of bills Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10, but we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the complainant as there was no warranty/guarantee of the used vehicle.  It was the duty of the complainant to inspect the vehicle at the time of purchase of the used vehicle.  There is no document produced on the file by the complainant that any warranty/guarantee of the used vehicle was given by OP number 2 at the time of its purchase.  Since the complainant had failed to pay the instalments to the OP number 3 (financer of the vehicle), therefore OP number 3 took the vehicle from the complainant and OP number 3 further sold the vehicle to OP number 4.   There is no dispute over the sale and purchase of the vehicle.  Ex.OP3/3 is the copy of loan agreement which further supports that the vehicle was got financed from OP number 3 by the complainant.

11.            Further another allegation of the complainant is that the engine number of the vehicle in question is different than the engine number mentioned on the registration certificate of the vehicle. We may again mention that it was the duty of the complainant to see/inspect it at the time of its purchase. We have also perused the copies of registration certificates, Ex.C-4 which is in the name of one Jatinder Paul and another Ex.C-5 which is in the name of one Mohinder Singh, but we may mention that the engine number is the same one as HWYSG9214 on both the RCs Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 and further this fact finds support from the affidavit Ex.C-11 of Suresh Kumar and Ex.C-12 of Mohinder Singh that the engine number is the same one. Ex.OP3/3 is the loan agreement which shows the same engine number as is mentioned in the RCs. It is presumed that finance company has done the required paper work about the vehicle particulars after proper verification.  Under the circumstances, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

12.            In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

13.            The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

14.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

                        Pronounced.

 

                        December 7, 2023.