( As per Ajitkumar Jain, Honorable Member )
The Complainant filed this complaint against Opposite Parties for seeking various reliefs as per prayer clause.
(1) Complainant’s case in short is that complainant wanted to purchase “PAJERO” Mitshubishi vehicle from O.P.No.2. The cost of above vehicle was Rs.19,77,890/- including insurance charges, but O.P.No.2 agreed to give discount of Rs.45,000/- so the cost of the vehicle was fixed for rs.19,32,890/-. As per the suggestion given by employees of O.P.No.2 complainant has taken the finance from O.P.No.1 . The loan amount of vehicle duly credited on dated 30.08.2008 by O.P.No.1 to the account of O.P.No.2 to the tune of rs.1799000/- towards the finance of the vehicle PAJERO SFX. Complainant already paid Rs.1,30,000/- through 2 cheques bearing No.103313 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and 10331.4 for Rs.30,000/- on dated 8-4-2008 towards booking amount. Complainant submitted that O.P.No.2 has not presented the cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the bank because vehicle was not available. The Complainant has been paying all the installments punctually to O.P.No.1.
(2) Complainant alleged that the cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- given to O.P.No.2 was time barred , hence complainant issued a cheque of Rs. 76,943/- on 17.01.2009 and told to O.P.No.2 that he will insure the vehicle (Rs. 57,890) and requested to attach the accessories of Rs.19,053/- in the vehicle . Complainant submits that as vehicle is no available with O.P.No.2 and hence the complainant has not made arrangement of funds in it’s account to honour the cheque. Complainant alleged that the cost of the vehicle “PAJERO’’ has been paind to O.P.No.2 but still the O.P.No.2 have committed deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.
(3) Complainant further alleged that O.P.No.2 started demanding additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/- alleging that the cost of the vehicle has increased. But complainant replied that he has paid entire amount of cost of vehicle therefore any increase in the cost of the vehicle is not responsibility of complainant. Complainant prayed to declare that Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service and O.P.No.2 be directed to accept the remaining amount of Rs.57,890/- and deliver the vehicle at Gondia. Complainant also prayed that O.P.No.2 is directed to pay interest on the installment paid amount to O.P.No.1 till the date of delivery of possession of vehicle and also direct to O.P.No.2 to pay Rs.30,000/- ad damages and Rs. 5000/- as mental harassment with cost of litigation. (Exh.1)
(4) In response to notice under Section 13 o Consumer Protection Act, 1986 O.P.No.2 & 3 appeared and filed his reply (Exh.9). O.P.No.2 and 3 objected about jurisdiction of this Forum. They have submitted that O.P.No.2 and 3 does not have or did not have any branch office at any point of time at Gondia. And O.P.No.2 never contacted the complainant at any point of time at Gondia . So they requested that the present complaint deserves to be rejected for want of jurisdiction. The Forum has ordered that O.P.No.4 is branch office which carries on business at Gondia. Hence under Section 11 (2) (b) of Consumer Protection act, 1986 this Forum has territorial jurisdicition to decide this complaint.
(5) O.P.No. 2 and 3 denied all allegations of complainant . O.P.No. 2 and 3 submitted that there is no agent appointed by Company at Gondia or at Nagpur to given demonstration of any vehicle manufactured by the Mitsubishi Company. And O.P.No. 2 and 3 not authorized to run this vehicle on the road without registered it from Transport Authority. O.P.No. 2 denied that in respect of seeking finance from O.P.No. 1 , O.P.No. 2 and 3 denied that complainant has paid booking amount for the vehicle . Complainant has given cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- but he himself warned for not presenting the cheque and this cheque was time barred. Complainant has paid amount of Rs.30,000/- as repairs another motor vehicle bearing R.T.O. Registration No. MH-04/Y-2720 and this vehicle was delivered on 29-09-2008.
(6) O.P.No. 2 and 3 further submitted that O.P.No. 1 i.e. I.C.I.C.I Bank directed the O.P.No.2 not to deliver the vehicle to the complainant unless and until the complainant makes complete payment of margin money including insurance charges and R.T.O. Registration cost which are standard requirement of all finance companies. O.P.No.2 and 3 denied for ready to delivery of vehicle at Gondia. O.P.No.2 and 3 denied that the person Mr. Manoj Jain never the Manager of his company. Complainant’s cheque of Rs. 76,943/- was given towards the outstanding of bill of repairs of motor vehicle No. MH-04/Y-2720 and the said Cheque No. 430755 dated 17-1-2009 stood dishonoured due to “Fund Insufficient” in account of complainant. So O.P.No.2 and 3 requested that this complaint deserves to be rejected with heavy compensatory cost in favour of O.P.No. and 3.
(7) At the time of argument on 3-12-2009 O.P.No.1 and 4 appeared and presented application for setting aside ex-parte order. This Forum has allowing this application subject to the cost of Rs. 200/- which is to be deposited in C.L.A.A.
(8) O.P.No. 1 AND 4 SUBMITTED THAT NO CAUSE OF ACTION ARISE AT Gondia and adverse pleading against O.P.No.1 & 4 is specifically denied. O.P.No. 1 and 4 further submitted that they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on part of them.
(9) On verifying all records and hearing arguments of both the sides (including all parties) only point arose for our consideration whether complainant is entitle for any relief as per prayer clause and our finding is in negative due to following reasons:-
REASONS
10 Complainant has submitted in his complaint that he has paid full amount towards the cost of “PAJERO” SFX on 30-08-2008 but O.P.No.2 failed to handed over the vehicle and thus committed deficiency in service. Complainant submitted an affidavit in this complaint that he has paid booking amount for purchase of “PAJERA” SFX car vide cheque No. 103313 dated 8-4-2008 . But complainant pressed not to present the cheque so it was time barred. Complainant has issued another cheque for Rs.76,943/- . This cheque was returned by Bank due to “Funds Insufficient”. This cheque was issued for the outstanding bill of repairing of another car bearing No. MH-04/Y-2720 . This shows the malafide intention of the complainant and complainant has not come with ‘clean hands’. So it is clear that complainant has failed to establish that he had booked the car by paying the alleged booking amount.
11 Complainant argued that he is paying the installments to the I.C.I.CI. Bank Nagpur i.e. O.P.No.1 and he presented statement of the bank issued by Gondia Branch. But he failed to produce deposit slips. O.P.No.2 and 3 replied that they have paid all installments and closed the account of bank because Bank O.P.No.1 pressing him to deliver the vehicle and complainant was failed to arrange the margin money. Bank has issued cheque of loan to O.P.No.2 . Hence he is responsible to deliver the vehicle or refund the amount to the Bank. So. O.P.No.2 has paid full amount and close the loan account. Because O.P.No.2 is not entitled for using this bank amount O.P.No.2 submitted that when complainant failed to arrange only Rs. 1,00,000/- how he will paid the entire amount. And by giving a letter Bank pressing him because complainant has not paid amount to deliver the vehicle, so non-payment of margin money, insurance charges, accessories charges and by non taking the pains of paying loan amount, the O.P.No.2 has repaid the loan amount to the Bank (O.P.No.1) and closed the account.
12 Complainant failed to submit any cheque book or bank statement that he has paid the installments to the bank against loan amount for purchasing “PAJERA SFX” vehicle. Thus without paying any amount from his pocket he want delivery of vehicle. Complainant submit one case law AIR 199 Supreme Court 1441, . But this case Law is not applicable. Complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of all O.P’s. Hence we proceed to pass following order :-
ORDER
1 Complaint is hereby dismissed.
2 No order as to cost.
