DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 130 of 15.05.2007<br /> Decided on : 10-08-2007 <br /> <br /> Jeewan Kumar S/o Sh. Om Parkash, Tailor Street, Ward No. 17, Mansa, Tehsil & Distt. Mansa. <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.I.C.I.C.I Bank, Branch Office, Mall Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, Registered Office at Land Mark Race Course Circle, Vadodra 390 007 through its General Manager.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Complainant is a Goldsmith. He was to purchase a car for domestic as well as business purposes. Opposite party No. 1 was contacted by him for obtaining loan. He was told that a Ford Icon Car 2005 model had been financed by it to one Bhupinder Singh resident of Bathinda who had committed default in the repayment of the loan amount. Car was taken into possession by them. He was further apprised that it is competent to sell and transfer it. Since car was not so far registered with any competent authority, opposite party No. 1 had offered to issue complete documents for its registration. Assurance was given that there would be no problem for getting the same registered. Accordingly he had purchased the car for consideration of Rs. 3,12,000/- from opposite party No. 1. Entire sale consideration was paid on 12.6.06. Delivery of the Car having chassis No. MAJA MR T.A. SG3905, engine No. M.A.J.A.X.M.R.T.A. 5G A 3905 was taken. Opposite party No. 1 issued bill of the car, sale certificate (Form No. 21), fitness certificate (Form No. 22), Forms No. 35,26,28,29 and Form No. 30 of Insurance. These documents were produced before District Transport Officer, Bathinda who demanded Form No. 20 duly signed by Bhupinder Singh, original owner of the Car who had since died. Opposite parties expressed their inability to supply the same due to the death of Bhupinder Singh. In the alternative, District Transport Officer demanded legal heir certificate of Bhupinder Singh and their signatures on Form No. 20. He (complainant) had contacted the opposite parties for doing the needful, but they refused to do so. They continued putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. In this manner, there is deficiency in service on their part. He got served legal notice upon the opposite parties on 3.11.06, but to no effect. He is unable to use the car for want of its registration. He has undergone mental and physical agony due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to supply him Form No. 20 bearing signatures/thumb impression of legal heirs of deceased Bhupinder Singh alongwith their affidavits or in the alternative to return sale consideration of Rs. 3,12,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of purchase; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that only remedy available to the complainant is civil suit for mandatory injunction; complaint requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence; complainant is not consumer and complaint has been filed on false facts. Inter-alia their plea is that complainant had given bid for purchase of the car in question. Car was sold to him in 'as it is condition'. He was made aware that car was re-possessed from a defaulter customer who had died. Complainant was very well aware that vehicle was not registered. In the facts and circumstances, vehicle of Rs. 4.00 Lacs was sold at lesser price to the complainant. Form Nos. 35, 26, 30, 29 and 27 concerning removal of hypothecation of ICICI Bank, issuance of duplicate RC, transfer of insurance, transfer of ownership and no objection certificate respectively were issued by them. These could be the documents which could be provided by the financier. They had never given assurance that they would issue or supply legal heir's certificate of Bhupinder Singh or get their signatures on Form No. 20. They cannot force the legal heirs of Bhupinder Singh to sign any particular document. To the contrary, complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle had told that he would get Form No. 20 of the heirs of deceased Bhupinder Singh. Remaining averments in the complaint stand denied.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), copy of order dated 12.4.07 (Ex. C-2), copy of complaint dated 21.2.07 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. C-4), photocopy of Form No. 21 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of Form No. 22 (Ex. C-6), photocopy of Form No. 30 (Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8), photocopy of Form No. 29 (Ex. C-9), photocopies of Form No. 28 (Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-12), photocopy of Form No. 26 (Ex. C-13), photocopy of office endorsement ((Ex. C-14), photocopy of Form No. 35 (Ex.C-15), photocopy of insurance cover Note (Ex. C-16), photocopy of letter dated 18.9.06 (Ex. C-17), photocopy of another letter dated 18.9.06 (Ex. C-18), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-19), and photocopies of postal receipts (Ex. C-20 & Ex. C-21).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bansal, Collection Manager (Ex. R-1) has been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. In order to substantiate his version, complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1. Copy of the retail invoice of Bhagat Ford is Ex. C-4 according to which Mr. Bhupinder Singh had purchased car for a consideration of Rs. 4,89,000/-. Purchase of car by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 3,12,000/- is not in dispute. Complainant admits that documents in the shape of Forms No. 35,26,30,29 & 27 were delivered by the opposite parties. Complainant has also proved on record copies of Forms No. 21,22,30,29,28,26 & 35 which are Ex. C-5, Ex. C-6, Ex. C-7, Ex. C-9, Ex. C-10, Ex. C-13 and Ex. C-15 respectively. <br /> 7. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the complainant are that opposite parties had undertaken to issue complete documents for getting the car registered with the District Transport Officer. They had also undertaken to issue Form No. 20 after getting it duly signed from legal heirs of Bhupinder Singh deceased. Since Form No. 20 has not been issued by the opposite parties after getting it signed/thumb marked from the legal heirs of deceased Bhupinder Singh, complainant is unable to get the car registered with the District Transport Officer, Bathinda. Car is lying parked and he is unable to use it. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties on account of which complainant is entitled to the direction sought in the complaint. He also drew our attention to the copy of legal notice Ex. C-19 sent to opposite party No. 1 and copies of the letters Ex. C-17 & Ex. C-18.<br /> 8. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as no contract of the opposite parties has been proved by the complainant according to which they have undertaken to supply Form No. 20 after getting it signed/thumb marked from the legal heirs of Bhupinder Singh, deceased.<br /> 9. Rival arguments have been considered by us.<br /> 10. Onus to prove the case is upon the complainant. It is his duty to establish his version by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Case cannot be said to be proved on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. There is no document according to which opposite parties had undertaken at the time of sale of the car that they would get Form No. 20 signed/thumb marked from the legal heirs of the deceased Bhupinder Singh. As is evident from Ex. R-1 complainant had given bid for purchase of the car and it was sold on the basis of 'AS IT IS' basis. He was made aware that car was re-possessed from the defaulter customer. From the complaint as well, it is clear that complainant was aware that original owner Bhupinder Singh has since died and car was not registered with the competent authority. Whatever documents were in the possession and power of the opposite parties have been delivered to the complainant. In such a transaction generally car is purchased at lesser price than its actual price. Accordingly in Ex. R-1 Sh. Ashish Bansal, Collection Manager of opposite party No. 1 has stated that this vehicle of of the value of Rs. 4.00 Lacs was sold at lesser price to the complainant. Affidavit Ex. C-1 of the complainant stands amply rebutted with Ex. R-1. Mere service of notice, copy of which is Ex. C-19 upon opposite party No. 1 would fetch no significance particularly when no document is on the file showing that opposite parties had agreed to get Form No. 20 signed/thumb marked from the legal heirs of the original owner Bhupinder Singh. It is also worth mentioning that how can opposite parties force them to sign a particular document. Moreover, Sh. Ashish Bansal has stated in Ex. R-1 that complainant had said at the time of purchase of vehicle that he would get Form 20 from the legal heirs of the original owner. Complainant does not state that legal heirs of Bhupinder Singh were contacted by him for getting their signatures/thumb marked on Form No. 20 and that they refused to do so. <br /> 11. In the premises written above, conclusion is that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, complaint being meritless is dismissed.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 10-08-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br />