Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1573/2015

Iqbal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karun Auto Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Balwant Singh Dhindsa

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                       

                                                Complaint No.  1573

                                                Instituted on:    01.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       07.09.2016

 

Iqbal Singh son of Sarwan Singh, resident of Village Rasoolpur Channa, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Karun Auto Enterprises, Malerkotla bye pass road, Dhuri through its Manager.

2.             Bajaj Finance Ltd. Malerkotla Bye pass Road, Dhuri through its authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

For the complainant  :       Shri A.S.Dullat, Adv.

For Opp.parties         :       Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Iqbal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant approached  OP number 1 and purchased a new motorcycle under exchange offer and as such the complainant exchange the motorcycle bearing registration number PB-13-W-8670 Bajaj which was of the uncle of the complainant, namely, Shri Dhian Singh and the Op offered Rs.23,000/- for that motorcycle as such the amount of Rs.23,000/- was adjusted on purchase of a new motorcycle for an amount of Rs.45,040/- plus Rs.1000/- as file charges.  Further case of the complainant is that after deducting the exchange price of the old motorcycle the remaining amount of Rs.23,040/- was got financed from OP number 2 and as such the complainant agreed to pay the amount of Rs.23040/- along with interest in 15 equal instalments of Rs.2000/- each.  The grievance of the complainant is that though the complainant had paid all the 15 instalments to the Ops, but the OP number 2 failed to issue the no due certificate to the complainant. As such, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to issue the due certificate regarding of the motorcycle  bearing registration number PB-13-AP-9108 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by OP number 1, it is admitted that the motorcycle in question was purchased by the complainant from OP number 1 on 12.6.2014, but the remaining allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. Legal objections have also been taken by OP number 1 on the ground  that the money matter is involved in the present case and elaborate evidence is required to be led, as such it is stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction, that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and the same be dismissed with special costs.

 

3.             The opposite party number 2 has also filed the reply of the complaint on the similar lines denying all the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill dated 12.6.2014, Ex.C-2 copy of DL, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-17 copies of receipts, Ex.C-18 copy of temporary registration, Ex.C-19 copy of emission test certificate, Ex.C-20 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-21 affidavit of Dhian Singh, Ex.C-22 affidavit of Gurjit Singh and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 account statement, Ex.OP1&2/2 copy of loan application form, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of schedule forming part of auto loan agreement, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of loan agreement and Ex.OP1&2/5 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle in question from OP number 1 on 12.6.2014 for Rs.45,040/- as is evident from the copy of challan, which is on record as Ex.C-1. Ex.C-2 is the copy of registration certificate of the vehicle in question. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the OPs did not issue him the no due certificate against the loan taken by the complainant from the OPs, despite the fact he has deposited all the instalments of the loan with the OP number 2 and to support this contention, he has also referred the receipts regarding repayment of the loan amount, which are on record as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-17.    On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that there is outstanding amount against the complainant, as such, they are unable to issue no due certificate.  To support such a contention, the Ops have also produced on record the copy of statement of loan account, which is on record as Ex.OP1&2/1.  But, we may mention that the Ops number 1 and 2 both have filed a vague reply, which has no sense at all.   Even in the legal objections, both the Ops have stated “that money matter is involved in the present case and elaborate evidence is required to be lead in this case and the case cannot decided in summary proceedings. That the vehicle was taken by the complainant for commercial purposes by using the vehicle as Taxi by employing a driver on the car and the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.” It seems that both the OPs have not prepared the reply in very casual manner.

 

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents we feel that in the present case neither the complainant has established his case nor the OPs have filed any detailed reply nor both the parties have produced any conclusive evidence on record, as such, we are of the considered view that there is dispute between the parties even on facts also.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the case in hand requires to be relegated to the civil court for adjudication, as in the present case, there is requirement of voluminous evidence to be produced by both the parties to establish their respective case, which is  not possible in the summary proceedings before this Forum.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant with liberty to seek his remedy before the civil court/competent court of law, if he so desired. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 7, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member