BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Complt. Case No : 208 of 2010 Date of Institution: 07.04.2010 Date of Decision : 14.10.2010 Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma s/o Sh.Ishwar Singh, R/o H.No.5297/B, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh. ……Complainant V E R S U S 1] Indian Car Centre through its Proprietor/Owner, SCO No.6, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 2] Sh.Gurdev Singh s/o Sh.Nand Singh, r/o 26, Gulmohar Block, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Distt. Patiala, Punjab. .…..Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant. OPs No.1 & 2 already exparte. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER This complaint has been filed by Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma s/o Sh.Iswar Singh under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 1] The facts of the case are as under:- The complainant had purchased a Second Hand Car make Toyota from OP No.2 on 20.1.2010. The consideration amount was fixed at Rs.3,50,000/-. This amount was paid to OP No.2 through Cheque bearing No.097316 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited. A receipt was issued to the complainant by the OPs. The delivery of the car was given to the complainant on 27.1.2010 only after the cheque was encashed by the OPs. OP No.1 charged an amount of Rs.7000/- from the complainant as commission for the sale, and promised the complainant that all original forms/documents required for registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant would be handed over to him within a week from the date of delivery of the vehicle. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, only a photocopy of the R.C. and Original Insurance cover note were given to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached both the OPs several times for transfer of the vehicle in his name, but no action was taken by them to comply with his request. Each time he was given a false assurance that the vehicle would be transferred in his name within a few days. In the meantime, OP No.2 went abroad without delivering the original & necessary documents to the complainant for getting the vehicle transferred in his name. Due to non-transfer of vehicle in his name, the complainant was not in a position to use the vehicle. The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to either transfer the vehicle in his name immediately or take back the car and refund the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as well as commission paid to them along with compensation for harassment and deficiency in service. 2] After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs. Summons sent to OP No.1 through Process Server were received back with the report of refusal. Refusal amounts to service. Since neither the Proprietor of OP No.1 appeared in person nor any authorized person of OP No.1 appeared on its behalf on the next date of hearing i.e. 11.6.2010, it was proceeded exparte on the same day. Summons sent to OP No.2 were received back duly served. Again neither OP No.2 appeared in person nor any authorized agent appeared on his behalf on the next date of hearing i.e. 14.9.2010, therefore, he was also proceeded exparte on that day. The case was fixed thus for exparte arguments. 3] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the evidence led by the complainant in support of his contentions. 4] The complainant had purchased a vehicle from OP No.2 with the help of OP No.1, who was the dealer, for his personal use. Due to non-transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant, he has not been able to enjoy the benefit of the vehicle though he had paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for the purchase besides Rs.7,000/- as commission to OP No.1. It seems that the OPs are either not able to provide the relevant documents; or are not willing to get the vehicle in question transferred in the name of the complainant. It is already over 9 months since the date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant. 5] In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the OPs should refund back the amount paid to them by the complainant for purchase of the vehicle as well as the commission for the sale. This complaint is therefore hereby allowed with the following directions to the OPs:- i) OP No.2 will refund Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from thedate of sale of the vehicle till the date of actual payment to the complainant. ii) Besides this, OP No.1 will also refund Rs.7000/- paid to him by the complainant as commission for the said deal. iii) OP No.2 will also pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. iv) On the receipt of the whole decretal amount from the OPs, the complainant shall handover the possession of the vehicle to OP No.2. The aforesaid amount be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall pay aforesaid decretal amount of Rs.3,57,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of sale of the vehicle till the date of actual payment to the complainant besides paying litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. 6] Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 14th Oct., 2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER ‘Om’
DISTRICT FORUM – II | | CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.208 OF 2010 | | PRESENT: None. Dated the 14th day of October, 2010 | O R D E R Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. |
| | | (Madhu Mutneja) | (Lakshman Sharma) | (Ashok Raj Bhandari) | Member | President | Member |
| MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | |