ORDER

Per Sh. Rakesh Kapoor , President



    On 22-3-2012, the complainant had booked a Santro GLS car with M/s
Koncept Hyundai by paying the  booking amount of Rs. 5,000/- vide
reciept number 7671 dated 22-3-2012. On the same day he was  informed
by the HDFC bank that his application for auto loan had been approved.
On 26-3-2012 the  complainants were offered loan @ 11.5% p.a. interest
 along with processing fee  of Rs. 1500/- by  another representative
of the bank , he had been given an assurance  that the delivery of the
car shall be made on 28-3-2012 in all circumstances by arranging
sanction of loan on or before that date,  It is alleged that on
28.3.2012, the complainant had reached the showroom of  Koncept
Hyundai for taking delivery of the car and had paid the margin money
of Rs. 1,00,688/-   vide rciept no 7906 dated 28.3.2012 but the
delivery of the car was refused on account of non reciept of the
sanctioned loan amount from the bank.  The complainant had  negotiated
with OP2 who assured that on the complainant’s making payment of the
remaining amount of Rs 2,83,,000/- in cash,the delivery  of the car
will be made on the same day  upto 24 Hrs. It was agreed that on
receipt of the sanctioned loan from the bank, OP2 shall refund the
amount of Rs. 2,83,,000/-.  It is alleged by the complainant that even
after receiving the full and final payment of the car, OP2 delivered
the car vide invoice dated 28-3-2012 for Rs. 360262/- .  It is alleged
that the invoice shows that the car had been financed by the HDFC Bank
and the insurance cover had been issued on behalf of M/s Bharti Axa
Insurance  Company.  It is also alleged that on 29/3/2012 the
complainant received another Message from HDFC Bank that their
application for Auto Loan had been approved. A representative of the
bank had  visited the complainant and asked the complainants   to give
fresh consent of loan at an interest  rate of @ 11.5% p.a.  along
with process fee of Rs 2092/- . It is alleged that even after giving
the aforesaid consent the bank did not disburse the loan amount to the
dealer who had refused to refund the amount paid in cash in lieu of
the loan amount.  However, on 30-3-2012 , the complainant’s had got
information from OP1 that  the  sanctioned loan amount of Rs.
2,90,000/- had been disbursed to OP2 after deducting  the processing
amount of Rs. 2092/-. On receiving the information the complainant
approached OP2 and asked for  the refund of the  amount  received from
OP1. OP2 however, refused to refund the amount.  The complainant
served a legal notice on the the Ops, but to no effect and, therefore,
approached this forum for the redressal of his grievances.



      The complaint has been contested by the Ops. OP1 in its written
statement has denied any deficiency in service and has claimed that it
had duly sanctioned an Auto Loan as per the application received from
the complainant and has disbursed the same accordingly.  It has
claimed that the complaint against it is not maintainable and is
liable to be dismissed.

      A separate written statement has been filed by OP2 who has also
denied any deficiency in service on its part and has c;laim that the
complaint against it is also not maintainable. Paras 2 to 4 of the
preliminary objections of the written statement of OP2 are relevant
for the disposal of this complaint and are reproduced as under:-



2.That the complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with unclean
hands and by suppressing and concealing material facts with
delibearate motives to play a fraud upon this Hon’ble Forum as also
cheat and harass the answering respondent.  It is submitted that the
deceased son of the complainant namely Sh. Narender Singh during his
life time had received a sum of Rs. 2,83,000/- from the answering
respondent and had issued a valid reciept for the same.  It is
submitted that the present complaint is an absolutely false, frivolous
, mischievous and misconceived complaint and has been filed  with
ulterior motives to unjustifialy enrich himself thereby causing
wrongful loss to the answering respondent and had put the fact on
record that he was left with no claims or grudges against the
answering respondent.  The presentcomplaint is liable to be dismissed
on this ground alone.

3. That the present  complainant has no locus standii, file and / or
maintain the present complaint. It is submitted , that it was Mr.
Narender Singh who had purchased the subject vehicle.  The present
complainant was neither the applicant, nor the purchaser of the said
vehicle.  The present complainant neither deposited the alleged amount
nor received the refund of Rs. 2,83,000/- from the answering
respondent.   There being no privitiy of contract between the
answering respondent and the present complaint, hence the complaint
cannot be maintained by sh. Jagdish Ambedkar.

4. That present complainant has delibearately and with motives obvious
made a false statement before this Hon’ble Forum on 23.8.2012.  The
present complainant on the said date stated that Narender Singh was
unmarried at the time of his death and there is no other legal heir
except him.  However, in the information submitted with respondent no.
1, Late Narender Singh stated to be married.  The said fact appears
from the record of this Hon’ble Forum. Further the deceased also left
behind his mother.  It seems that present complainant is habitual in
making false statementws without fear of law.



                OP2 has also contested the complaint  on merits and
has reiterated that there is no cause of action for  filing the
present complaint against it. It has claimed that the amount of Rs. 2,
83,000/-  already stands paid to Sh. Narender Singh , the son of the
complainant.  Op2 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.



      We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

  The grievance of the complainant in this case is that OP2 had
received a sum of Rs. 2,83,000/- in cash at the time of the delivery
of the vehicle and had promised to refund the same after disbursment
of the loan by OP1.   The further grievance of the complainant is that
despite the fact that the aforesaid loan was disbursed by OP1 , OP2
had refused to refund the amount of Rs. 2,83,000/-  recieved by it in
cash.   OP2 on the other hand has taken a stand that the sum of Rs.
2,83,000/- had already been refunded to Sh. Narender Singh  (Son of
the complainant) one of the applicants during his lifetime who had
executed a valid reciept in this regard.  On behalf of OP2 ,an
affidavit has been filed by Sh. Tushar Vashisht who is working as a
Sales Manager .  He has supported the case of OP2 and has deposed on
oath that the sum of Rs. 2,83,000/- had been refunded to Sh. Narender
Singh , the son of the complainant against reciept Ex. RW2/1.  Even
though, the complainant has disputed this reciept , we are unable to
hold that the sum of Rs. 2,83,000/- has not been refunded to the
complainant as alleged.    A complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act is decided on the basis of the affidavits filed on
record by the parties along with documents. Where however there are
questions of facts which require their determination by means of
evidence of the witnesses including their detailed cross-examination,
the appropriate forum is the Civil Court and not this Forum.  We,
therefore, hold that the present complaint is not maintainable in this
forum. The complainant may have recourse to his remedy in any other
forum/ Civil Court. With these observations, the complaint is
dismissed.





Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

    File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................