Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he had purchased a commercial vehicle (Chhota Hathi) bearing Chassis No.MBIAA22E6ERA72731, Engine No.AEHO16587P for his livelihood on 25.06.2014 from Opposite Party No.1 who is authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.2. Further alleges that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- as down payment and Rs.5,20,464/- at the time of purchase of the vehicle in question which was financed by M/.Magma Finance Cop Limited who has tie up with Opposite Party No.1. and the same was insured with Magma General Insurance Company against paid up amount of Rs.23,459/-. However, no policy was issued, but only the cover note was issued. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, Opposite Party No.1 only provided Temporary Certificate of registration to the complainant bearing NO.PB-10U-2014 Temp 8419, valid for the period 2nd July 2014 to Ist August, 2014. Further alleges that on 22.08.2014, when the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 to get the service done, at the time of preparing job card by filling engine number and chassis number, it found that the vehicle was in the name of M/s.Azad Tempo union, Phillour C/O Sucha Singh son of Karam Singh, VPO: Kullian Lubana, Jalandhar City. In this way, the Opposite Parties under the garb of selling new vehicle has sold second hand vehicle and cheated the complainant by selling him the second hand vehicle which is already registered in the name of above said Azad Tempo Union. In this way, there is clear cut deficiency in service, and cheating by the Opposite Parties towards the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.5,70,464/- alongwith interest and also to pay of Rs.2 lakh on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant besides Rs.10,000/- traveling charges and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant has concealed the fact that there was an outstanding of Rs.10,000/- towards him as the costs of the vehicle as the total costs of the vehicle was Rs.5,47,857/- and a sum of Rs.4,93,000/- was financed from Magma Fin Corp Limited and balance of Rs.54,957/- was to be paid by the complainant and after discount of Rs.20,157/- an amount of Rs.25,200/- was paid by the complainant on 25.06.2014 without the outstanding amount of Rs.10,000/- and the said amount is still due towards the complainant and now in order to grab the said amount, and in order to put pressure on Opposite Party No.1, the present complaint has been filed. The vehicle in question was new vehicle and was never sold to Azad Tempo Union as alleged by the complainant and the alleged job card is a forged and fabricated one. On merits, Opposite Party No.1 also taken up same and similar as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied being wrong and denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.
4. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that first of all, neither any evidence has been placed alongwith the complaint nor the same was brought on the record to show that the vehicle purchased by him is a second hand vehicle. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.2 has supplied the new vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1 with the chassis number and engine number as alleged by the complainant in his complaint which was later sold to the complainant. Opposite Party No.2 never deals with the old vehicle and manufacturers and supplies only the new vehicles to its dealer. The sole claim of the complainant that the vehicle in question is old one is based on copy of one job card, which is a manufactured and fabricated document as per which the name of owner of vehicle has been mentioned as Azad Tempo Union Phillon C/O Sucha Singh. On the basis of such a fabricated document, which is not issued by Opposite Party No.1, it can not be held that the vehicle sold to the complainant is an old vehicle and thus the complaint deserves to be dismissed. On merits, Opposite Party No.2 took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.
5. Opposite Party No.5 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the present complaint qua the Opposite Party No.5 is not maintainable in the present form and no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against Opposite Party No.5 and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.5. The allegations in the complaint suggest a deep rooted conspiracy to defame and malign the hard earned reputation of the Opposite Party No.5, besides making a false and unconscionable claim. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied being wrong and denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
7. Opposite Parties No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to OP1/5 and Opposite Party No.5 also tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP5/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops5/2 and Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RA/2 alongwith copy of document Ex.R1/2.
8. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
9. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 5 have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that first of all, at the time of delivery of the vehicle, Opposite Party No.1 only provided Temporary Certificate of registration to the complainant bearing NO.PB-10U-2014 Temp 8419, valid for the period 2nd July 2014 to Ist August, 2014. Further alleges that on 22.08.2014, when the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 to get the service done, at the time of preparing job card by filling engine number and chassis number, it found that the vehicle was in the name of M/s.Azad Tempo union, Phillour C/O Sucha Singh son of Karam Singh, VPO: Kullian Lubana, Jalandhar City. In this way, the Opposite Parties under the garb of selling new vehicle has sold second hand vehicle and cheated the complainant by selling him the second hand vehicle which is already registered in the name of above said Azad Tempo Union. In this way, there is clear cut deficiency in service, and cheating by the Opposite Parties towards the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that first of all, neither any evidence has been placed alongwith the complaint nor the same was brought on the record to show that the vehicle purchased by him is a second hand vehicle. Moreover, the Opposite Party No.2 has supplied the new vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1 with the chassis number and engine number as alleged by the complainant in his complaint which was later sold to the complainant. Opposite Party No.2 never deals with the old vehicle and manufacturers and supplies only the new vehicles to its dealer. The sole claim of the complainant that the vehicle in question is old one is based on copy of one job card, which is a manufactured and fabricated document as per which the name of owner of vehicle has been mentioned as Azad Tempo Union Phillon C/O Sucha Singh. On the basis of such a fabricated document, which is not issued by Opposite Party No.1, it can not be held that the vehicle sold to the complainant is an old vehicle and thus the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Perusal of the file shows that the complainant has failed to prove his assertion to produce on record any iota of evidence that the Opposite Party No.1 has sold him the second hand vehicle. Further perusal of the job card invoice placed on record by the complainant Ex.C6 and same document placed by Opposite Party No.1 Ex.OP1/4 on record shows that there is some forgery. The document placed on record by the complainant Ex.C6 is of full page is the copy of the document and on the other hand, the document Ex.OP1/4 placed on Opposite Party No.1 is seems to the correct because both the documents are of same chassis and engine number. However, the document Ex.C6 placed by the complainant on record is on the name of M/s.Azad Tempo union, Phillour C/O Sucha Singh son of Karam Singh, VPO: Kullian Lubana, Jalandhar City and other document placed by Opposite Party No.1 on record Ex.OP1/4 is on the name of complainant. In such a situation, the onus to prove the fact that out of these, what is the correct document, it is upon the complainant, but the complainant has failed to adduce any iota of evidence to prove his assertion, on the record. In such a situation, we find no force in the contention of the complainant and we hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case by filing and cogent and convincing evidence on the record regarding his genuineness.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint today i.e.23.05.2022 at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
