Punjab

StateCommission

A/90/2018

Mohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hero Motor Corp. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,      PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

                   First Appeal No.90 of 2018

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution   : 19.02.2018

                                                          Order Reserved on : 03.04.2018

                                                          Date of Decision     : 04.04.2018

 

 

Mohan Lal son of Hari Ram, resident of Village Kishanpura, Tehsil Nawashahr District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab

 

 

                                                                      …..Appellant/Complainant

 

                                                Versus

 

 

1.      Hero Motor Corp. Ltd. through Manager, 34 Community Centre        Basant Vihar, New Delhi, Pin Code 110057.

 

 

2.      M.R Autos, through Manager Chandigarh Road, Near Paras   Hotel, Nawanshahr District SBS Nagar Punjab Pin Code     144514

 

                                                        ..Respondents/Opposite parties

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 05.02.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SBS Nagar (Nawanshahr)

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

                   Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                   :  Sh.Mohan Lal in person

………………………………………………………………………………

 

                                     

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                    Challenge in this appeal by the complainant/appellant Mohan Lal in person is to order dated 05.02.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SBS Nagar (Nawanshahr), dismissing the complaint of the complainant by holding that he is not consumer. Aggrieved by order of District Forum SBS Nagar dated 05.02.2018, the appellant/complainant has come up with this appeal against the same.

2.                The complainant filed the complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OPs on the averments that he being ex-serviceman went to Army Canteen at Jalandhar for purchasing one scooter. Payment has been received by Army Depot from him and OP no.2/MR Autos through Manager Chandigarh Road Paras Hotel Nawanshahr District SBS Nagar ordering to release the above said vehicle to him. He visited office of OP no.2 with the above order. Its Manager Suresh stated to him to pay Rs.5000/- to him for release of scooter. The complainant visited proprietor of OP no.2, who also persisted in the same. He approached OP no.1, who stated to him that he could not help in that matter. He again visited Army Depot at Jalandhar, who offered him to release the scooter thereform. Army Depot prepared the order again and he obtained scooter from Jaswant Motors. He has filed complaint against OP no.2 for harassment caused to him. These are short allegations of the complainant in this case.

3.                We have heard appellant  in person at length at the initial stage of admission stage of this appeal and examined the record of the District Forum SBS Nagar.

4.                The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant by not admitting it primarily on the ground that he has not been proved to be the consumer of OP no.2. The grievance of the complainant is directed against OP no.2 only for causing undue harassment and humiliation to him. The complainant has not made any payment to OP no.2 and received the order for release of the above scooter from OP no.1 only. There is nothing on the record to establish this that either complainant paid partly or promised to pay any consideration to OP no.2. The complainant has privity of contract with OP no.1 only and there is no privity of contract of complainant with OP no.2 in this case. Mere causing harassment by OP no.2 to complainant gives him remedy to file an action before civil court only. This Forum is competent to take cognizance of the matter, when there is a dispute between consumer and service provider between the parties, as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act 1986. We find that complainant is not proved to be consumer of OP no.2 against whom this complaint has been directed. There is no consideration paid wholly or partly or promised to be paid by complainant to OP no.2 in this case. The mere demand of graft by OP no.2 from the complainant gives him remedy to proceed against OP no.2 on the common law side and not under Consumer Protection Act 1986. In this view of the  matter, we hold that complainant is not proved to be consumer of OP no.2 against whom this complaint has been directed by him.

5.                Consequently, we find no ground to admit this appeal for regular hearing and it is ordered to be dismissed in limine.

6.                Since order was reserved on 03.04.2018. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.

7.      The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                     (J. S. KLAR)

                                                     PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                         (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                   MEMBER

                                                                  

April 4,  2018                                                              

(ravi)