The brief facts of the complainant case, is that, the complainant has purchased a Tata LPT 2515 from Lakshmi Chhetri (1st Party) bearing Registeration No. AS – 17B/2743 on 16/01/2018 under lease with Sriram Transport Finance Ltd. After negotiation the sale has been finalized at Rs. 8,26,000/- and the O.P agrees to obtain NOC from finance and transfer the ownership in favour of the complainant. As per sale agreement complainant was paid Rs. 4,73,000/- as a down payment and rest balance was paid by the complainant to Sriram Transport Finance Ltd. from 05/02/2018 to 05/03/2021 in 38th installments. The complainant has paid Rs. 4,80,000/- to Sriram Transport Finance Ltd. out of which the complainant paid to the financer of Rs. 7,46,465/- inspite of the said payment. The NOC was not supplied to this complainant by the O.P and the vehicle was still not running as the fitness was expired as there is NOC fitness can not be done by the complainant. Complainant has financial loss as well as mental sufferings and agony for that reasons he has claimed Rs. 27,23,465/- from the O.P.
After admission of the case, notice was served upon the O.P. The notice was delivered to the O.P but he did not turn up to contest the case. Hence, ex-parte.
In support of the case the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit, written argument and Xerox copy of sale agreement, Xerox copy of general power of attorney.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and also perused the documents which are lying on record and also heard argument from the Ld. Advocate of the complainant.
In this context, the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all these points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience. The case has been filed u/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant.
Point Nos. 1 & 2:- In this case the allegation is that the complainant has purchased the motor vehicle from the O.P and has paid the purchase money along with the cost of financier. According to the C.P. Act he is a consumer and the occurrence taken place within the jurisdiction of this Commission for which this Commission can try this case.
Point Nos. 3 & 4:- In the complaint petition it is stated that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the O.P with a sale amount of Rs. 8,26,000/-. The complainant has filed one document (Annexure – A) which is reveals that heading of the document is “Sale Agreement” and the paragraph started this is a “Sale Deed executed between the complainant and the O.P and it was prepared on non-judicial stamp of Rs. 20/- without any authentication. We are very much quires enough to say that whether the document is a agreement or sale deed. We find that according to the registration Act if it is sale deed it is invalid and if it is a sale agreement then also it is an invalid without proper court fees and authentication. We fail to understand what actually complainant has done whether he purchased the same or agreed to purchase the same. That a part the second document (Annexure – B) has filed by the complainant is a general power of attorney authenticated by the notary public. From which it reveals that the O.P executed the general power of attorney in favour of the complainant to look after or managed of her vehicle and the complainant was plying the vehicle on the basis of this general power of attorney if that be so then the complainant is not the purchaser of the vehicle nor he is a consumer as per law. The entire petition of the complainant is not clear and we find that the complainant himself did not settle his mind what he wants to do. The complainant did not file the documents for payment of money either to the O.P or to the financier. We find that the whimsical Act of the complainant suffers the validity of this case. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as his complaint is totally vague and unclear. If he paid any money then best relief is to file a civil case in appropriate Forum. He is not entitled to get any relief from this case.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte without cost.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
