DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.13 of 14
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 8.01.2014
DATE OF ORDER: -24-8-2015
Ved Parkash son of Shri Baghrawat Singh, resident of Prem Nagar, Dhani Road, Gali No.2, Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani
……Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s Jagmohan Motor Ltd. (Authorized Maruti Dealer)Rohtak Road, Bhiwani, through its authorized signatory/dealer.
- M/s Jagmohan Motor Ltd. (one of the authorized branch Maruti Dealer) Loharu Road, Charkhi Dadri, distrtict Bhiwani, through its authorized signatory/dealer.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member,
Present:- Smt. Savitri Devi, Adv. for complainant
Shri A.Sardana, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 4.9.2013 he purchased a Ritz VDI Saloon Car from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- covering the insurance amount.. The complainant alleged that he availed the financial facility of Rs.4,60,000/- from Mahindera & Mahindera Financial Services Ltd. required to refund the same in 33 monthly installments of Rs.8300/-. The complainant further alleged that after depositing the entire amount to the opposite parties he demanded original documents in order to obtain permanent registration certificate but the authorized signatory of respondent No.1 refused to hand over the original documents and has demanded Rs.60,000/- through a letter. The complainant further alleged that the act and conduct of Ops for demanding additional amount of Rs.60,000/- in lieu of handing over the original documents is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and against the principal of natural justice and the complainant is not liable to pay the same with the Ops. Hence, the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Opposite parties have filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant had purchased the car in question for a sum of Rs.5,47,913/- vide invoice dated 6.9.2013 and out of the said amount he paid only for a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- on 6.9.2013 leaving behind a balance of Rs.4,29,913/-. It is also alleged that Rs.3,75,780/- were paid by the Mahindera & Mahindera Finance Company on 25.9.2013 and as such the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.4,93,780/- leaving the balance of Rs.54173/-. Apart from this the complainant had purchased accessories for a sum of Rs.19400/- on 9.9.2013 and as such a total amount of Rs.73533/- is outstanding against the complainant and as such, he is liable to deposit the same with the Ops. Moreover, the complaint of the complainant is bad for mis;joinder and non joinder of necessary parties as he has not impleaded the Mahindera & Mahindera Finance Company as party in the present complaint. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Challan, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of letter, Annexure3 C3 & C8 Photostat copies of calculation, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of Temporary RC, Annexure C5 Photostat copy of delivery challan, Annexure C6 Photostat copy of letter dated 4.9.2013, Annexure C7, C10 & C11 Photostat copies of receipts and Annexure C9 Photostat copy of Insurance Cover Note along with supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R1 Photostat copy of Invoice, Annexure R2 Photostat copy Ledger Account, Annexure R3 Photostat copy of letter date4d 25.9.2013, Annexure R4 Photostat copy of Cash Memo, Annexure R5 Photo stat copy of sale certificate, Annexure R6 Photostat copy of delivery challan, Annexure R7 Photostat copy of Gate Pass and Annexure R8 Photostat copy of Insurance cover note along with supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The claim of the complainant is that the original documents of the Car have not been supplied by the Ops to the complainant to obtain the permanent registration certificate from the concerned registering authority. It is stated that the complainant has made full payment of the car to the Ops by getting finance of Rs.4,60,000/- from the Mahindera & Mahindra Financial Service Limited.
7. On the other side, the Ops have counter the claim of Rs.5,47913/- on the ground that the complainant had purchased the car from Ops for a sum of Rs.5,47,913/- vide invoice dated 6.9.2013 Annexure R1, out of the said sum, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,18,000/- on 6.9.2013, the copy of ledger account is Annexure R2. Out of the balance amount of Rs.4,29,913/- the Ops have received a sum of Rs.3,75,750/- from the finance company, thus a sum of Rs.54133/- remain unpaid and the said amount is still outstanding against the complainant and he is liable to pay the said amount to the Ops with interest.
8. The complainant has not produce the loan account statement to prove that a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- was paid by the finance company to the Ops, as alleged by him. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we found that a loan of Rs.4,60,000/- was granted by the Mahindera & Mahindera Finance Company Ltd. to the complainant and after deducting Rs.24220/-from the said amount, the finance company has paid Rs.3,75,780/- to the Ops which is reflected in the copy of ledger account Annexure R2, against the finance of the car of the complainant.
9. Thus, the complainant had failed to bring cogent evidence to prove its version. Copies of the documents produced by the complainant do not support the pleadings of the complainant and as such no case of deficiency in service is made out against the Ops. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid on merits. No order as to costs.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 24-8.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
