Haryana

StateCommission

CC/225/2015

OM PARKASH SAINI - Complainant(s)

Versus

KBS MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint     No  :    225 of 2015

Date of Institution:     21.12.2015

Date of Decision :      06.02.2017

 

Om Parkash Saini s/o Sh. Sawan Ram, Resident of 49, Aggarsain Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                      Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s KBS Motors, Tepla, District Ambala through its Partner Krishan Kumar Bansal s/o Sh. Hansraj Bansal, Resident of H.No.315, Sector-6, Panchkula.

2.      M/s KBS Motors, Tepla, District Ambala through its Partner Rohit Bansal s/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Bansal, Resident of H.no.315, Sector-6, Panchkula.

3.      M/s Luxmi Switchgears Private Limited (Speed Links) Plot No.82, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Panchkula, through its Director.

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri A.S. Khara, Advocate for complainant.

Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate appearing on behalf of Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

                    Om Parkash Saini-complainant filed complaint alleging that he intended to purchase a Mahindra XUV vehicle and contacted Rohit Bansal-partner M/s KBS Motors-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. On his allurement, the complainant booked Mahindra Rexton car valuing at Rs.21,60,483/- and paid an amount of Rs.2,51,000/- on April 17^th, 2013. On 19^th April, 2013, Rohit Bansal further referred the complainant to another concern namely M/s Luxmi Switchgears Private Limited (Speed Links) at Panchkula-Opposite Party No.3, for delivery of the car. The complainant is stated to have paid Rs.10,50,000/- in cash and un-dated cheque for Rs.3.00 lacs in favour of Krishan Kumar-proprietor of Opposite Party No.3. The complainant took delivery of the car from opposite party No.3 at Manimajra. The documents of the vehicle were assured to be handed over later. However, the opposite party No.3 issued a Temporary Registration number valid for one month upon payment of Rs.6483/-. Since the documents were not delivered, therefore, the complainant stopped the encashment of cheque.

2.                The Opposite Parties raised another demand of Rs.40,000-50,000/- as a condition to hand over the documents of the vehicle. The opposite parties filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant. The complainant was approached by one Arun Kumar Gupta for mediation between the complainant and the opposite parties that if the complainant pays Rs.8,40,000/-, the balance amount of the car in lump sum, the complaint filed against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act would be withdrawn. The complainant stated that he paid Rs.4,40,000/- in cash and Rs.4,00,000/- by way of cheque on 25.12.2013. However, despite encashment of cheque and receipt of payment, the opposite parties neither delivered the documents nor withdrew the complaint. The complainant alleging that neither he could get the vehicle registered nor he could use the same without getting the same registered; therefore he suffered financially as well as mentally and filed the complaint seeking refund of Rs.21,40,000/- from the opposite parties alongwith interest and compensation.

3.                The Opposite Parties contested the complaint. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 in their joint written version raised certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint and that the complaint was as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

4.                On merits, it was submitted that the complainant paid Rs.2,51,000/- on 17.04.2013 assuring the remaining payment shortly. The complainant was delivered the vehicle and issued temporary registration number valid for 30 days. However, denied having received in cash Rs.10,50,000/- and undated cheque for Rs.3.00 lacs. It was stated that the complainant paid Rs.10,45,000/- in cash and thus the total payment received was Rs.12,50,000/-.  The Opposite Party No.3 issued receipt for Rs.12,49,000/- besides Rs.1,000/- towards incidental expenses for which separate receipt was issued. It was stated that after repeated persuasion and follow up, the complainant paid Rs.8.00 lacs by way of cheque which on presentation was dishonoured for which a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It was stated that even thereafter on persuasion, the complainant paid certain amount and thus the total amount received was Rs.20,96,000/- against the total amount of Rs.21,06,483/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.10,483/- besides a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards temporary registration number and interest of Rs.1,35,000/- was payable by the complainant.

5.                The Opposite Party No.3 in its reply stated that the opposite party No.3 had no direct dealing with the complainant and that the opposite party No.3 delivered the vehicle on account of its dealing with the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and that the vehicle was delivered on the asking of opposite parties No.1 and 2.  Rest of the allegations were denied.

6.                Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims.

7.                Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. File perused.

8.                Undisputedly, the price of the vehicle was Rs.21,06,483/-. As per admission of the opposite parties No.1 and 2, total amount of Rs.20,96,000/- was paid besides interest. After initial booking amount, the complainant paid the remaining amount on 25.12.2013 and though the vehicle has been delivered on 19.04.2013. The balance amount remained was only Rs.10,483/-.

9.                Though the opposite parties may have been justified in retaining the documents till they received the substantial amount of Rs.20,96,000/- till December, 2013; however there was no justification for retaining the documents after having received a sum of Rs.20,96,000/- in December, 2013.

10.              Undisputedly, the vehicle could not be registered for want of documents and could not be used without registration. The vehicle was required to be registered within 30 days failing which it attracts the penalty as provided under the rules.

11.              In view of this, the penalty, if any, for non-registration of the vehicle up to December, 2013 shall be the responsibility of the complainant, who was at fault in not making the payment despite delivery of the vehicle. However, thereafter, the penalty leviable shall be recoverable from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 for withholding the documents without any justifiable cause. However, the opposite parties shall be entitled to recover Rs.10,483/-, that is, the balance price of the vehicle from the complainant. 

12.              The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

 

 

Announced: 06.02.2017

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL