DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> CC.No.59 of 05-02-2010<br /> Decided on 07-06-2010<br /> Malkiat Singh son of Balwant Singh, resident of House No.298, Ward No.25, Paras Ram Nagar, Bathinda.<br /> .........Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. The Managing Director, Head Car Product Group, Passenger Car Business Unit, Tata Motors 5th Floor, One Forbes, Dr. U.B.Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai-400001.<br /> 2. Mehta Motors, Opposite LIC Office, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/proprietor/partner.<br /> .......Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> Present:- <br /> For the Complainant: Sh.Updeep Singh, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For Opposite parties: Sh.Sandeep Baghla, counsel for opposite party No.2.<br /> Opposite party No.1 exparte.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had got booked NANO car September, 2009 vide application form No.112059729 through State Bank of India, Bathinda. Despite his repeated requests the opposite parties have not delivered the said car to the complainant. He has already sent a legal notice through registered post. Hence he has filed this complaint for awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for seeking directions to the opposite parties for delivering the booked car.<br /> 2. The opposite party No.2 has pleaded that the car has neither been got booked nor any booking amount has been received by the opposite parties. The complainant is not consumer regarding this complaint. It further pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite party and requested for delivery of the alleged car whereas it has no concern with the booking of the car.<br /> 3. The opposite party No.1 failed to appear before this Forum despite of adequate service of notice. Hence exparte proceeding are taken against it.<br /> 4. Parties have led their evidence besides filing affidavits in support of their respective pleadings.<br /> 5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by both the parties perused.<br /> 6. A perusal of record placed on file revealed that the complainant got booked a Nano Car in September, 2009 after depositing a sum of Rs.2,999/- through State Bank of India to the opposite party No.1. In his affidavit Ex.C-1 the complainant in para No.3 deposed that he deposited the requisite amount for the said car with opposite party No.1 by taking loan from the bank. The opposite parties have not delivered the car to the complainant till today. The complainant alleged that two cars were got booked, one was in the name of his son whereas the other in his own name. One car was already delivered to him which was in the name of his son as the full payment was done in cash. He further alleged that the opposite parties failed to deliver the alleged car which was financed by him. <br /> 7. The complainant has not placed on file any receipt regarding booking amount. As the complainant got financed the above said undelivered car from State Bank of India, no such document is placed on file. The bank through which the car was booked and financed is not a party to the complaint. In absence of necessary party i.e. Bank, this complaint is difficult to decide. Moreover no allotment letter had been placed on file. Nothing is mentioned about the earnest amount. Only an application form is produced on file which is not a sufficient piece of evidence. Hence this complaint is disposed of as dismissed without any order as to cost <br /> 8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> 07-06-2010 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member