DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No: 244/2014
Date of Institution : 07.11.2014
Date of Decision : 06.04.2015
In the matter of:
Binder Singh son of Bhag Singh resident of village Sahaur, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Ley Land Agency, Rajbaha Road, Patiala through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Balwinder Singh son of Babu Singh Caste Ramdasia Sikh resident of House No. 9/43, Dasmesh Nagar, Kakar Wal Road, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri District Sangrur.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
For the complainant : Sh. Surjit Singh Advocate with complainant in person.
For opposite parties : Exparte
ORDER: BY SH. SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Binder Singh complainant (hereinafter referred as to CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein referred as to OPs for short), on the ground that, CC intended to purchase some light vehicle to make both ends meet of his family and for this purpose he met with OP-2. OP-2 assured the CC that, if CC purchase Ley Land Dosat Vehicle then he will arrange a loan for him from some bank and CC can refund the loan in easy installments. OP-2 showed himself to be the authorized agent of Ley Land Agency.
It is submitted that, OP-2 introduced the CC with the Manager of OP-1, who also assured the CC that, if CC purchase Ley Land Dosat Vehicle he will arrange a loan for him from some Nationalized Bank. It is further submitted that, Manager of OP-1 obtained the signatures of the CC on some printed blank papers without giving any details of them and sold a Ley Land Dosat Vehicle bearing No. PB-11-TB-9440 Engine No. 021944 Chassis No. 4518 Model 2013 dated 31.7.2013 to the CC for a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/-. It was agreed between the CC and the OPs that, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be less charged.
It is further submitted that, OP-2 assured the CC that, all the documents including certificate of registration, bills, insurance policy and other related documents will be supplied to the CC later on and delivered the above mentioned vehicle to the CC in the presence of Sukhdev Singh, Darshan Singh and Resham Singh. CC is an illiterate and handicapped person and has no knowledge of English language and he signed the blank papers in good faith.
It is further submitted that, CC remained depositing the installments of loan on monthly basis regularly without any default through bank Account bearing No. 5016575259. OPs inconnivance with each other arranged the loan for the CC from some LNT Finance Company instead of any Nationalized Bank by taking the advantage of the illiteracy of the CC and rate of interest on the loan of the finance company is much higher than the bank interest.
It is further submitted that, CC made so many visits to the OPs and requested them to release the Registration Certificate, Insurance Policy and NOC of the vehicle, but they putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and demanded Rs. 12,000/- for the release of these documents. CC already paid a sum of Rs. 4,62,500/- to the OPs and now nothing is due against him.
It is further submitted that, due to non release of above mentioned documents it is not possible for the CC to ply the vehicle on the road, which is the only source of his income, which caused a great mental tension, agony and harassment to him. Further, OP-1 also not provided free services to the CC as agreed by them, which also caused huge financial loss to the CC.
It is further submitted that, CC moved a written complaint bearing No. 4044/VP dated 21.12.2013 to the SSP Barnala, which was inquired by the Incharge, CIA, Barnala, in which OP-2 appeared and got recorded his statement on 22.1.2014 and admitted that, he was working as Salesman with OP-1 and he got purchased the vehicle and arranged a loan for the CC, but in order to usurp the amount of the CC he stated that, the insurance charges as well as other charges were extra. CC also served a legal notice upon OP-1 through his counsel on 20.9.2014, but no reply has been received from the OP-1.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, CC has sought the following reliefs against the OPs.-
1) OPs be directed to release the RC, Insurance, NOC and other relevant papers of Ley Land Dosat Vehicle bearing No. PB-11 TB-9440 Engine No. 021944 Chassis No. 4518 Model 2013.
2) OPs be further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
Complaint of the CC is thumb marked and verified by him. The complaint is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply, OPs have opposed the complaint of the CC by taking preliminary objections on the ground that, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, as it is specifically mentioned on the cash memo that, if any dispute arise between the parties, the same is subject to the Patiala jurisdiction. Further, CC has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.
On merits, it is admitted that, the OP-2 is an agent of Ley Land Agency. It is submitted that, CC himself approached the OP-2 with the request to arrange some loan for the purchase of a vehicle, so that he may earn his livelihood and on his request OP-2 introduced the CC with the OP-1, who explained all the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase of vehicle. CC fully agreed to abide by those terms and conditions and on his request OP-1 arranged a loan in favour of the CC, vide which CC has purchased the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/-.
It is denied that, signatures of the CC were obtained on printed blank papers without his knowledge. It is also denied that, CC was told that, Rs. 10,000/- will be charged less. It is submitted that, CC was clearly told that, the registration certificate and other relevant papers of the vehicle will be given to him, after the payment of remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- and this fact has already been admitted by the CC in writing. It is admitted that, on the complaint of the CC to the police an inquiry was conducted. It is also admitted by OP-2 that, he personally appeared before the Inquiry Officer and told him that, the sale price of the vehicle is Rs. 4,60,000/- and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be extra charged for the purpose of RC, insurance of the vehicle. The Inquiry Officer found all the allegations of the CC were false, so he dismissed the complaint of the CC in default.
It is further submitted that, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is still due towards the CC and OP-1 has no objection in giving the RC and other relevant documents of the vehicle to the CC, if he paid Rs. 10,000/- as settled between the parties. It is denied that, CC ever suffered any financial loss due to the act of the OPs.
Thus alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The version of OPs is signed by OP-2 Balwinder Singh.
Later on, both the OPs or their counsel failed to appear in the Forum, so both the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum dated 9.3.2015.
3. CC in support of his claim, has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-3, copy of temporary registration Ex.C-4, copy of pass book Ex.C-5, copy of statement of account Ex.C-6, copy of cash memo Ex.C-7, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-8, copy of bill dated 19.7.2014 Ex.C-9, copy of job card dated 28.6.2014 Ex.C-10, copy of job card dated 18.8.2014 Ex.C-11, copy of proforma invoice dated 12.8.2014 Ex.C-12, copy of credit spares vat invoice dated 12.8.2014 Ex.C-13, copy of credit spares vat invoice dated 12.8.2014 Ex.C-14, copy of receipt dated 24.4.2014 Ex.C-15, copy of letter Ex.C-16, copy of complaint Ex.C-17, copy of statement of Balwinder Singh Ex.C-18, copy of terms and conditions Ex.C-19, copy of repayment schedule Ex.C-20, copy of delivery report Ex.C-21, copy of receipt Ex.C-22 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, no document tendered by the OPs to to rebut the evidence of the CC.
5. We have minutely perused the entire complaint, version filed by the OPs, evidence of CC and also heard Learmed counsel for the CC at length.
6. It is an admitted fact that, CC had purchased a Ley Land Dosat Vehicle from the OP-1 through OP-2. It is also admitted that, OP-2 is the authorized agent of OP-1. It is further admitted fact that, OP-1 arranged a loan from LNT Finance Company in favour of the CC, vide which CC has purchased the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/-. Further, it is also admitted that, the registration certificate, insurance and other relevant papers of the vehicle were not delivered to the CC and still in the possession of OP-1 for want of Rs. 10,000/- more. It is further admitted by both the OPs in their version that, CC filed a complaint before the police and an inquiry was also conducted by the Inquiry Officer. It is further admitted that, OP-2 appeared before the Inquiry Officer, who recorded his statement.
The main preliminary objection of the OPs is that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as per the terms and conditions agreed between the parties and the courts at Patiala only have the exclusive jurisdiction over the present issue. To meet this objection, we have carefully perused Ex.C-18, which is a photocopy of the statement of OP-2 Balwinder Singh dated 22.1.2014, recorded before the Inquiry Officer. In this statement, it is clearly mentioned that, the vehicle of the CC was delivered to him on 31.7.2013 at Barnala. In this way, a part of cause of action is also arose at Barnala, as such this Forum has clear cut jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and this objection of the OPs has no force.
Further, from the perusal of Ex.C-19 and Ex.C-21, which are copy of terms and conditions of Loan offer and copy of delivery order, it is clearly proved on the file that, OP-1 arranged a loan of Rs. 4,14,000/- in favour of the CC and directly received an amount of Rs. 4,12,100/- from the finance company. It is also proved on the file that, CC also paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- in cash to the OPs on 1.8.2013 vide receipt No. 74, copy of which is Ex.C-22. In this way, as per the documents on the file, OP-1 has received a total amount of Rs. 4,62,100/- from the CC.
It is clearly admitted by the OPs in their version that, till date they have not supplied the registration certificate, insurance and other relevant documents of the vehicle to the CC and are in possession of OP-1 for want of Rs. 10,000/- more, but OPs have failed to produce any document to prove that, they have legally entitled for Rs. 10,000/- more. In the version, OPs have concocted a false story for demanding Rs. 10,000/-, but they have not attached any document to prove this specific plea. The OPs even have not produced any document to rebut the evidence of the CC except their version and even not filed any affidavit in support of their version and later on preferred to remain exparte, which shows that they have nothing to say regarding the claim of the CC.
Further, CC has proved his case that, he already paid Rs. 4,62,100/- to the OP-1 and regularly deposited the installments of loan vide Ex.C-6, which is a copy of statement of account. CC also proved that, he many times requested the OPs to supply the required documents and even got issued a legal notice Ex.C-2 to the OPs to redress his grievance, but OPs have not supplied the required documents to him for plying the vehicle on road. Even, he approached the SSP, Barnala for this purpose but even then OPs have failed to supply the required documents to the CC.
In view of our above discussion, it is proved that, this is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1. Even the OPs have much harassed the CC by not supplying the required documents to him from 31.7.2013 till today and these documents are in their possession from the last about 1 year and 8 months and without Registration Certificate, Insurance and other required documents CC cannot ply the vehicle on road, which caused a huge financial loss to him.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we allow the present complaint against the OP-1 and order the OP-1 to hand over the registration certificate, insurance and other relevant documents to the CC, which are necessary to ply a vehicle on the road without taking any amount from the CC and also to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- to the CC for causing physical and mental harassment to him and also dragging him into unwanted litigation. The OP-1 is also directed to provide all the free services of the vehicle to the CC as per the manual/booklet of the vehicle.
This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
6th Day of April 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
Vandna Sidhu
(Member)
