BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.282/16.
Date of instt.: 12.09.2016.
Date of Decision: 20.04.2017.
Dalbir Singh son of Sh. Ami Chand, r/o House No.876/33, Peoda Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- HDB Financial Services Limited through its Manager/Incumbent In-charge Sector-20, Urban Estate, near Old HUDA Office, HUDA, Kaithal.
- HDB Financial Services Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO No.234, Ist Floor, Sector-12, Urban Estate, HUDA, Karnal.
- Gurwant Singh S/o Tara Singh, C/o Prince Aggarwal, Singla Motor at Old Rice Sheller Market, near Truck Market, Khanori, Distt. Patiala (Punjab) Mobile No.085690 00080.
2nd address: R/o Vill. Galori, Tehsil Patran, Distt. Patiala (Punjab).
- Jagdish S/o Sh. Ram Niwas, r/o House No.33-D, Block No.243, r/o Vill. Bhanpura, Tehsil and Distt. Jind.
- Registering Authority-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jind.
- Registering Authority-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Pawan Midha, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.1 & 2.
Sh. Subhash Chugh, Adv. for Op No.3.
Sh. Satish Kumar, Transport Inspector on behalf of Op No.6.
Ops No.4 & 5 exparte.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 05.02.2016, he purchased the truck bearing registration No.HR-55-L/3786 from the Ops No.1 & 2 through Op No.3 for a consideration of Rs.8,35,000/- and Op No.3 had executed a receipt of above-mentioned amount on the back side of the release order and also received an additional amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant in lieu of transferring the ownership rights of truck and handed over the truck in question to the complainant. It is alleged that the truck in question was purchased with the assurance that the registration certificate/NOC, other requisite and necessary papers i.e. copy of insurance policy, fresh affidavit of sale, original R.C., two copies of form No.35 duly signed by seller, two type of identity proof of seller, valid fitness certificate, valid national permit, valid token tax etc. will be transferred in the name of complainant and handed over some documents to the complainant. It is further alleged that the Ops No.1 to 3 have re-sold the truck in question to the complainant and Op No.4 i.e. complainant of the false complaint titled as Jagdish Vs. HDB Financial Services and others is not the owner of truck as the Op No.4 has himself violated the terms and conditions of agreement which was duly executed by him in favour of Ops No.1 & 2. It is further alleged that since the day of purchase of vehicle in question, the Ops No.1 & 2 in collusion with the Ops No.3 & 4 are threatening the complainant to take possession of the vehicle forcibly on the ground that the same is to be handed over to Jagdish. It is further alleged that neither the Ops No.1 & 2 are providing the requisite/complete papers of the truck to the complainant nor ready to refund the amount of Rs.8,65,000/-. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 & 6 appeared before this forum, whereas Ops No.4 & 5 did not appear. Op No.5 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 25.10.2016 and Op No.4 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 15.12.2016. Ops No.1 & 2 filed their joint reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Op No.4 i.e. Jagdish son of Ram Niwas and Op No.3 and answering Ops; that the answering Ops financed a vehicle to Jagdish, Op No.4 but Op No.4 was very much irregular in paying the instalments of loan from the very first instalment; that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the dispute raised by the complainant is only against the Op No.4 and there is no transaction regarding any sale of vehicle in between the complainant and answering Ops. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.3 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi and evasively denied all the facts contained in the complaint and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Op No.6 filed the reply on the same line as followed by Ops No.1 & 2 and 6 and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22 and Mark-CA & Mark-CB and closed evidence on 16.01.2017. On the other hand, the Op No.6 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW6/A and closed evidence on 17.02.2017. The Ops No.1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Annexure-R1 and Op No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.RA, Ex.RB and Mark-RA and closed their evidence on 03.03.2017.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant purchased the truck bearing registration No.HR-55-L/3786 from the Ops No.1 & 2 through Op No.3 for a consideration of Rs.8,35,000/- and Op No.3 had executed a receipt of above-mentioned amount on the back side of the release order and also received an additional amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant in lieu of transferring the ownership rights of truck and handed over the truck in question to the complainant. The main grievance of the complainant is that the above-said vehicle is not transferred in the name of complainant. During the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the Ops placed a copy of Register of Motor Vehicle, from which it is clear that the truck bearing registration No.HR55L/3786 has been transferred in the name of complainant. The complainant has also admitted that the truck in question has been transferred in his name but he requested for compensation only on the ground that the possession of the truck in question was not delivered at the time of purchase of vehicle and the same remained standing with the Ops.No.1 & 2 for sometime. In his complaint, the complainant has admitted that the Ops No.1 & 2 in collusion with the Ops No.3 & 4, were threatening to take the possession of the vehicle from him which means that the possession of vehicle in question with the complainant. So, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the grievances of complainant have already been redressed by the Ops and the present complaint has becomes infructuous.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint being infructous. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.20.04.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
