DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 247/2014
Date of Institution : 07.11.2014
Date of Decision : 10.06.2015
Parshotam Dass son of Shiv Lal resident of Bhagta Bhai Ka Tehsil Phul District Bathinda now resident of Sehna Tehsil Tapa District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Global Auto Mobile, Opposite Power Grid, Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Manager.
2. Manpreet Finance Company, Near P.R.T.C. Workshop, Backside of Bus Stand, Barnala through Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajiv Goyal Advocate counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Gagandeep Garg Advocate counsel for the opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Parshotam Dass has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against Global Auto Mobile referred as opposite party No. 1 and Manpreet Finance Company referred as opposite party No. 2.
2. The brief facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Honda Activa bearing registration No. PB-03-AG-2970 from the opposite party No. 1, which was financed by opposite party No. 2. At the time of purchasing the above said vehicle, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 12,600/- to opposite party No. 1 through receipt No. 4532 dated 31.10.2013. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 18,020/- to the opposite party No. 2 alongwith interest in installments as under.-
S. No. Receipt Amount of Dated
Number Installment paid
1. 75836 Rs. 4,720/- 10.12.2013
2. 77271 Rs. 4,300/- 08.01.2014
3. 78869 Rs. 4,500/- 10.02.2014
4. 80617 Rs. 4,500/- 10.03.2014
It is further pleaded that the opposite parties obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank and stamp papers. It is further alleged that the opposite parties with the connivance of each other seized the above vehicle illegally and forcibly with the help of Goons from the shop of the complainant at Sehna in the presence of Shiv Lal and Kewal Krishan and also insulted the complainant. It is further alleged that the opposite parties have sold the said vehicle to some other person with the connivance of each other. It is also alleged that due to the illegal possession of the vehicle by the opposite parties the complainant and his family members suffered irreparable loss, mental tension, agony and physical harassment. Even, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties for refunding the amount or possession of the said vehicle, however, opposite parties failed to give any satisfactory reply. Hence the present complaint is filed by the complainant for directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 30,620/- alongwith Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension etc and Rs. 10,000/- as costs of proceedings.
3. Upon notice the opposite party No. 1 filed a separate written version taking legal objections on the ground of locus standi, concealment of material facts, jurisdiction and misuse of process of law.
On merits, the opposite party No. 1 admitted that the complainant had purchased one Honda Activa and availed of Rs. 46,000/- as loan. It is further pleaded that the value of the Honda Activa was Rs. 58,500/- and the complainant paid Rs. 12,600/- to the opposite party No. 1. However, the opposite party No. 1 denied that they got signatures of the complainant on some blank and stamp papers in connivance with opposite party No. 2. They have also denied that they sold the said vehicle of the complainant to another person with the connivance of each other. They also denied that the amount of the vehicle deposited by the complainant grabbed by them. They have also denied that the complainant suffered any pecuniary or non pecuniary loss or any physical harassment, mental tension and agony. They have also denied any deficiency or negligence on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The opposite party No. 2 has also filed a separate written version taking preliminary objections on the ground of locus standi, mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction, abuse of process of law and not coming to this Forum with clean hands.
On merits, they submitted that the complainant executed a loan application on 16.11.2013, hypothecation agreement dated 16.11.2013 and agreed to pay the entire loan in 12 monthly installments each of Rs. 4,523/-. The complainant availed of Rs. 46,000/- as loan from the opposite party No. 2 and Sh. Balwinder Singh son of Kartar Singh of Barnala stood as guarantor. It is further submitted that the value of the Honda Activa was Rs. 58,500/- and the complainant paid Rs. 18,020/- to opposite party No. 2 through four installments. Since the complainant failed to pay remaining installments after 10.3.2014, he himself without the consent of the opposite party No. 2 sold the said Honda Activa to Sh. Balwinder Singh and in this regard a written agreement to sell was executed between the complainant and Balwinder Singh on 3.5.2014. Through this agreement complainant received Rs. 11,000/- from Balwinder Singh and it was agreed that the remaining eight installments were to be paid to opposite party No. 2 by the said Balwinder Singh. However, the opposite party No. 2 denied that they seized the vehicle in question forcibly with the help of Goons. They have also denied of giving any threat to the complainant. They have also denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered into evidence his detailed affidavit Ex.C-15, copy of invoice Ex.C-1, copy of certificate of inspection Ex.C-2, copy of Form No. 20 Ex.C-3, copies of receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8, copy of notice Ex.C-9, postal receipts Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11, acknowledgments Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-13, affidavit of Shiv Lal Ex.C-14, copy of warranty registration card Ex.C-16, affidavit of Kewal Krishan Ex.C-17 and closed his evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Kumar Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Manpreet Singh Ex.OP-2, affidavit of Balwinder Singh Ex.OP-3, copy of agreement dated 3.5.2014 Ex.OP-4, copy of Form No. 29 Ex.OP-5, copy of letter dated 16.11.2013 Ex.OP-6, copy of hypothecation agreement Ex.OP-7, copy of guarantee of Balwinder Singh Ex.OP-8, copies of receipts Ex.OP-9 to Ex.OP-16 and closed their evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the file carefully.
8. The case of the complainant is that he purchased the Honda Activa for Rs. 58,500/- and paid Rs. 12,600/- to the opposite party No. 1 at the time of purchasing of vehicle and Rs. 18,020/- to the opposite party No. 2 in four installments as referred to above.Thus the total amount paid was Rs. 30,620/-. However, the opposite parties with connivance of each other seized the said vehicle of the complainant illegally and sold the same to one Balwinder Singh without his consent. The seizure as well as the sale of the vehicle was illegal as no notice was given to the complainant. Moreover, the alleged agreement and documents placed on the record by the opposite parties were manufactured by the opposite parties at the back of the complainant and these do not bear the signatures of the complainant and fraud has been committed upon him.
9. On the other hand the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant failed to pay the loan amount to the opposite party No. 2 so the complainant himself sold his vehicle to Sh. Balwinder Singh on 3.5.2014 vide agreement Ex.OP-4, who was also the guarantor of the said loan. Moreover, as per agreement the remaining installments were paid by the said Balwinder Singh and the allegations of seizure and selling of the vehicle by the opposite parties are not tenable.
10. Now the question arises whether the agreement Ex.OP-4 is duly executed by the complainant. From the perusal of the same it shows that it is executed by Parshotam Dass complainant stating therein that he purchased one Activa bearing No. PB-03-AG-2970 financed by Manpreet Finance Company Barnala on installments for which he paid Rs. 12,600/- to the opposite party No. 1 and he was to pay 12 installments of Rs. 4,523/-. This agreement further says that due to some family problems he has sold this scooter to one Balwinder Singh son of Kartar Singh resident of Narayan Nagar, Barnala and received Rs. 11,000/- in cash and further the said Balwinder Singh will be responsible for depositing the remaining eight installments of Rs. 4,523/- and if there will be any loss to the scooter then the said purchaser Balwinder Singh will be responsible. This agreement further shows that alongwith this agreement the complainant filled form No. 29 and 30 and the said Balwinder Singh would transfer this vehicle to his name from Manpreet Finance after depositing all the installments. This agreement further shows that the complainant has signed on the revenue stamp and purchaser has also signed this agreement. Moreover, Jasvir Singh witness and writer Satwinder Singh have also put their signatures.
11. Ex.OP-5 copy of form No. 29 further shows that it pertains to form of notice of transfer of ownership of motor vehicle and it is duly signed by Parshotam Dass. Form No. 30 is addressed to the Registering Authority, Barnala for transferring of the vehicle and it bears the signature of the complainant Parshotam Dass. Apart from these forms the opposite parties have also placed on the file receipts Ex.OP-9 to Ex.OP-16 i.e eight receipts showing the payment of installments by Balwinder Singh. The payment of eight installments by Balwinder Singh subsequent to the agreement Ex.OP-4 shows that the agreement was acted upon by the said Balwinder Singh.
12. The contention of the complainant that the agreement Ex.OP-4 is not executed by him is untenable. The complainant has failed to place on record any expert opinion that the signatures on the agreement and on the forms No. 29 and 30 were not pertaining to him. Had there been no agreement then why the said Balwinder Singh would have deposited the remaining eight installments.
13. Moreover, in the authority titled as Surya Pal Singh Versus Vinayak Motors & Anr. Reported in III (2012) CPJ-4 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under.-
“Under the Hire Purchase Agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retain the vehicle only as abailee/trustee, therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non payment of installment has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financier.”
14. In view of the above discussion and the citation we are of the opinion that the allegations of forcibly seizure and sale by the opposite party No. 2 are not proved. It is also pertinent to mention here that the procedure adopted by the District Consumer Forum is summary in nature and this Forum is not going to record lengthy evidence to decide the allegations of fraud. Therefore, the complaint is without merits and the same is dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek his remedy before the Civil Court in case he is of the view that fraud has been committed against him by the opposite parties in accordance with law, if he so desired. There is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
10th Day of June, 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member.
