Complainant Sandeep Mishra through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the opposite parties to issue the vehicle to him or to payRs.9,38,860/- with interest upto date which his bank has transferred in the account of opposite party no.2 and opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him at the hands of opposite parties alongiwth Rs.40,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is employee under the opposite party no.3 as L/NK (DMT) bearing No.15785075L. He had approached the opposite party no.2 for the purchase of one Ertiga Car from the Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt.Ltd. agency and complied with all the formalities required by the CSD department of the purchase of the vehicle and he had also applied for the bank Loan which was dispersed by the bank in his favour and the bank had transferred the amount of Rs.9,38,860/- through RTGS/NEFT in favour of opposite party no.2 vide dated 5.6.2018 certificate of the bank regarding the said transfer was issued to him. The opposite parties have illegally denied him to issue him the aforesaid car without any cogent reason or cause. He further pleaded that one of the officer namely Major C Dinesh who is also serving in the same unit with him had purchased one Mahindra XUV 500 car from CSD Depot Ahmdabad with same formality. He had requested opposite parties a number of times to issue approve his car papers/sale letters or to return his hard earned amount which he has borrowed from bank as car loan but the opposite parties refused to do so. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 and opposite parties no.1 & 3 being Principal are fully responsible for the act and conduct of the opposite party no.2. A legal notice on dated 25.7.2018 through his counsel had served upon the opposite parties but they neither gave his claim nor any reply to him. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant approached the CSD Depot, Pathankot for the purchase of four wheeler on 7.6.2018. As per procedure in vogue, the payment of 04-wheeler has to come from the individual/complainant account only, but the payment have been received from the parking account of the bank, CTC of guidelines. Evidently the amount of Rs.9,38,860/- was paid through Account No.98556036582 and as per rules the amount is liable to be refunded to the same SBI account by the CSD. But the complainant was pressing to refund the amount to another account No.3038327332 which was not in order vide his refund application dated 15.6.2018. Actually, the complainant vide his refund application dated 15.06.2018 is claiming refund of the amount and on the other hand SBI Udhampur is also claiming refund of the said amount. Since the money has been received from the parking accounts of the bank as such the refund has also been made to the SBI Udhampur vide Cheque No.857937 dated 5th October 2018 and the amount also stood credited into the account of SBI Udhampur. The complainant has concealed the refund application dated 15.6.2018 with ulterior motive. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.C-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18.
5. Alongwith the written statement, opposite parties has filed affidavit of Sh.Chittibabu. P. Area Manager, CSD Depot, Palthankot alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8.
6. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the pleadings put forth by both the Ld.counsels for the parties, it reveals that complainant applied to the Ops for purchase of a vehicle 4 wheeler Ertiga by availing loan from SBI and the payment to get the vehicle was made directly from the Parking account of SBI Udhampur. Ex.C-9 clearly proves that amount of Rs.9,38,860/- was remitted from account No.98556036582 and credited into the CSD Public Fund Acc Main account No.0062002100149685. Ops has produced Ex.R1 on the file. These are the guidelines for purchase of vehicle from CSD at No.2 (b) it is clearly mentioned that “the amount deposited with CSD has been credited from my account only.” Ex.R3 is a request application written by complainant himself for refund of car loan amount into his account. Ex.R2 proves that as per rules, refund is to be made to the account from where the money is received. Ex.R-4 proves that the amount is refunded to the parking account of S.B.I. Air Force Station Udhampur Branch through cheque No.857937. It is the plea of complainant that the OP has not replied to the legal notice issued by complainant but Ops have produced on the file Ex.R7 which is reply to the legal notice and Ex.R8 which are the postal receipts of the same. These documents are sufficient proof that allegations of complainant were replied immediately. Complainant has intentionally concealed this fact just to avail undue advantage from Ops. In its written arguments submitted at later stage, complainant himself admitted that CSD has refunded the amount into the SBI account at Udhampur. All this clearly proves that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. They have acted as per the rules.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove his complaint and as such the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.
ANNOUNCED: (Shri Raj Singh) (Rajita Sareen)
December 30, 2019. Member Presiding Member
MK
