BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Om Pal s/o Sh. Rajan, r/o # 6581, Sector 56, Chandigarh

…..Complainat

                           V E R S U S

1]Hi-Tech. Force Motors, Plot No.658, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh, through its Manager

2]Dharminder, Asstt. Sales Manager, Hi-Tech. Force Motors Plot No.658, Phase I, Chandigarh

                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

       SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

Argued by:Sh.Dalip Kataria, Adv. for complainant.

 OPs ex-parte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

       Succinctly put, the complainant stated that OP-2 visited his house as Executive of OP-1 and introduced the vehicle named Chota Hathi, a four wheeler vehicle. The complainant showed his interest in purchasing the said vehicle.  OP-2 told the complainant to pay Rs.55,000/- only in advance and he would get the vehicle financed by OP-1 for the remaining amount. The complainant handed over Rs.55,000/- to OP-2,  but no receipt of the said amount was issued to the complainant. As per the complainant, the vehicle alongwith its insurance and temporary number was handed over to him on the next day.  Further, the complainant stated that at the time of finance of the said vehicle, it was promised by OPs that the bank loan for the said vehicle would be cleared within one month, but the OPs did not get success to finance for the said vehicle.  After that on 8.09.09, OP-2 along with Balwinder Singh forcibly took the possession of the said vehicle and the complainant was beaten up by OP-2 and his friend in the presence of some persons.  The complainant went to the police station to lodge a complaint against OP-1 but no complaint was lodged by the police party.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed that the OP-1 be directed to pay Rs.55,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum alongwith costs of litigation and compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to him.

2.          Notice was served to OPs for reply and evidence. Initially, Sh. Gurwinder Singh, Sales Manager/Representative of OP-1 and Sh. Dharminder, OP-2 in person, appeared and sought time to file reply and evidence but thereafter none turned up behalf of OPs. Accordingly OPs were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.        The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.        We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5.        There is no document to suggest if the payment of Rs.55,000/- was made by the complainant to any of the OPs. Even this much is not proved, if the complainant was in possession of Rs.55,000/- on the said date on which the payment is alleged to have been made. He claims to have borrowed this amount from his relatives but he has neither mentioned their names nor produced their affidavits to prove this fact.  Moreover, he could not obtain loan in cash for more than Rs.20,000/- otherwise than through a negotiable document, the copies of which also not has not been produced.  It therefore cannot be said if he had any such amount to pay.  There is no receipt obtained by the complainant from the OPs for the payment of the said amount.  Further if the vehicle had been sold to the complainant there would be some invoice and other sale documents in his favour, but there is none.  In the absence of a document of sale, the complainant would not become the owner of the said vehicle.  As is clear from para 3 of the complaint, it is a loan transaction between the complainant and OPs, as the complainant claims to have paid the said amount to the OPs.  If he wants to recover the amount, it would be a Civil Suit for recovery and not a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act which would be maintainable. 

6.        The complainant has referred to annexure C-1, which is the copy of the Insurance Policy alleged to have been issued in his favour and annexure C-2, which is the copy of the Temporary Registration Certificate. Needless to mention, that none of these documents would confer owner ship rights of any vehicle on the complainant.  It is not shown as to on the basis of what document of title annexure C-1 and C-2 were issued. The persons who issued the same have not been produced neither as witnesses nor their affidavits have been attached.  No presumption of truth is attached to these documents. No document other than annexure C-1 and C-2, have been produced which could have been enough to declare the complainant as owner of the said vehicle.

7.        As regards, contention of the complainant that Balwinder Singh alongwith some other persons threatened him and took the forcible possession of the vehicle, even that is also not proved beyond doubt.  The affidavit of those persons in whose presence the vehicle was allegedly snatched has not been produced. There is no written report lodged to SHO or SSP about this snatching.   No criminal complaint appears to have been filed before the Magistrate.  The snatching is alleged to have taken place on 19.03.09 but the present complaint was filed on 22.09.09, after a delay of more than 6 months. Obviously the complainant was trying to fabricate a false story to obtain an order against OPs regarding the payment of Rs.55,000/- under the garb of the present complaint.

8.        In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint.  The same is accordingly dismissed. OPs are left to bear their own costs.

       Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.