Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/3

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Deepak Chandel, Adv.

02 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,                 ROPAR

 

                                                          Consumer Complaint No. : 03 of 20.01.2017

                                                                    Date of decision            : 02.06.2017

 

          Paramjit Singh, aged about 49 years, son of Sh. Jagan Nath, resident of   Village Passiwal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar. 

 

                                                                                                ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

          1. Mahindra  and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Rupnagar, Tehsil &                 District Rupnagar, through its Manager.  

          2. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. Branch Ist Floor, Simran                    Complex Nangal, Chandigarh Highway, Near Navjiwan Hospital, Nangal,                     Township PS and Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar through its Branch                Manager.   

                                                                                                ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                                               Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                              MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Deepak Chandel Advocate counsel for the complainant

Sh. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Paramjit Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of      the           Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only)          against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for       the following reliefs:-

i)       To allow the complaint and the O.Ps. may kindly be summoned.

ii)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/-  on account of mental agony and physical harassment   

ii)      To pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses along with interest @ 12% per annum till its realization in the interest of justice   

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that earlier Devinder Kumar son of Sadhu Ram, resident of House No.96 C, Jawahar Market, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar, had purchased a vehicle make Mahindra Maxico Passenger Van bearing Temporary Registration No.PB-12-P-8490 from Raj Motors, National Highway, 21, Choti Gandhon, Chandigarh Road, Rupnagar, after obtaining a loan from the O.P. No.1. Mr. Devinder Kumar, could not repay the loan amount and the O.P. No.1 repossessed the said vehicle. On 18.12.2014, he purchased the said vehicle from O.P. No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The O.P. No.2 had shown him the said vehicle at its premises at Nangal in the presence of Sudhir Kumar son of Sawitar Chand, resident of Village Passiwal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar and it also issued the release letter on behalf of the O.P. No.1. At the time of purchase on 11.8.2014, he also paid Rs.11,000/- to O.P. No.1 for getting the said vehicle registered with the Registering Authorities. The O.P. No.1 assured him that he would get the registration certificate within two months. He got insured the said vehicle from the United Insurance Company and had paid a premium amount of Rs.6500/-. Inspite of payment of entire consideration, the O.Ps. did not give him any documents of the said vehicle. After two months, he approached and requested the O.Ps. for handing over the necessary documents/RC of the vehicle but all in vain. Thereafter, on 12.8.2015, he moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar, against the O.P. No.1 and the said application was marked to SHO Police Station City, Rupnagar. The O.P. No.1 appeared and on 26.8.2015, compromised the matter with him. Before the Police Authorities, the O.P No.1 admitted that the complainant had paid Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.11000/- to him for completion of all the documents of the vehicle and it was also settled that he would further pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to O.P. No.1 upto 2.9.2015, for completion of the documents. In compliance of the compromise dated 26.8.2015, he paid Rs.15,000/- to the O.P. No.1, in the presence of Sudhir Sharma son of Sawitar Chand, resident of Village Passiwal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar, but O.P. No.1 refused to issue the receipt. He visited the O.P. No.1 so many times to get the complete documents of the said vehicle but when it did not provide him the documents then he again on 30.12.2015 filed an application with the SSP Rupnagar, which was marked to SHO City Rupnagar, for inquiry. The said official record his statement on 5.4.2015 and 30.4.2015. He also made a complaint bearing No.1123057 on helpline number. He also served a legal notice dated 2.6.2016 upon the O.Ps. On 5.9.2016, the O.P. No.1 had given him a draft bearing No. 975362 dated 5.9.2016 for a sum of Rs.15000/-, form No.35 and NOC etc. to him. On 2.12.2016, he first got made the RC in the name of Devinder Kumar and then got it transferred in his name, by spending the amount from his own pocket. In this way, the O.Ps. have intentionally and willfully harassed him for a long period almost two years. Due to non supply of requisite documents by the O.Ps., he could not get the vehicle registered and was unable to ply the said vehicle on road, which amounts to deficiency in service and the indulgence of the O.Ps. into unfair trade practice. Due to said act of the O.Ps. he has also suffered a huge financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. have filed written version taking preliminary objection; that the complainant is not a consumer as the O.Ps. never promised the complainant for getting made the RC from the registering authorities. They have given the Form No.35 and NOC dated 5.12.2014 to the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit dated 18.11.2014 had deposed that he is solely responsible to get the vehicle registered in his name and shall at no stage hold MMFSL responsible for the same; that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant previously also filed the complaint before this Hon’ble Forum and now he has filed the present complaint by twisting the facts thus, same is not maintainable. On merits, the O.Ps. admitted the factum of sale of said vehicle to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- but have denied receipt of Rs.11,000/- from the complainant for getting the registration certificate of the said vehicle. It is stated that the complainant had given the amount to Sh. Mandip Sharma to get the RC of the said vehicle, who was not their employee but was employee of the company namely HDC Financial Services, Amritsar. The O.Ps. have no concern with the said person except that he had taken the NOC from the O.Ps. on behalf of the complainant. It is not the duty of the O.Ps. to get the vehicle insured. Since the complainant had not paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to O.P. No.1 for completion of documents, then there is no question of refusal to give any receipt of the said amount. The complainant had given the amount to Sh. Mandip Sharma, against whom the complainant had made a complaint with the police station and thereafter compromised the matter with him as is evident from the document annexed along with the complaint. It is stated that after sale of the said vehicle to the complainant, it was their duty to give him NOC and Form No.35 only, which they have already given on 5.12.2014 to Mandip Sharma on behalf of the complainant. The complainant undertook to get the said vehicle transferred in his name as is evident from his duly sworn affidavit dated 18.11.2014. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal the same with heavy cost.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the     complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant Ex. CW1A, affidavit of     Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Ex.CW2/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and       closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps.      tendered affidavit of Sh. Anurag Sharma, Authorized representative and    signatory of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd Ex.OPA along        with documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the file, including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the O.Ps.

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 18.11.2014, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the O.P. No.1 and had paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- and also a sum of Rs.11,000/- for getting transfer the said vehicle in his name. But when he did not get the registration certificate then on 12.8.2015, he lodged a complaint with the police station against the O.P. No.1. Sh. Mandip Sharma, being the employee of O.P. No.1, had appeared before the Police Authority and had admitted the factum of receipt of Rs.1,80,000/- and Rs.11,000/-. It was settled before the police that the O.P. No.1 would hand over the complainant the registration certificate of the said vehicle provided he pay Rs.15,000/- more. He paid the said amount to Sh. Mandip Sharma, inspite of that O.P. No.1 did not hand over the registration certificate to him. On 30.12.2015, he again moved an application to the SSP, Rupnagar, for inquiry. On 5.9.2016, Sh. Mandip Sharma, being the employee of the O.P. No.1 returned him a sum of Rs.15,000/- and also handed over the NOC and Form No.35. The O.Ps. have handed over the NOC and Form No.35 to the complainant after a delay of two years from the date of purchase of the vehicle, as a result whereof, he could not get the said vehicle transferred in his name and was unable to ply the same for earning his livelihood and has suffered a huge financial loss and also gone through a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. The O.Ps. are thus, liable to compensate him. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the O.Ps. have already handed over the NOC Dated 5.12.2014 and Form No.35 to the complainant as Sh. Mandip Sharma, had already received the said documents from them on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has also furnished his affidavit dated 18.11.2014 to the effect that it is his sole responsibility to get the said vehicle transferred in his name. Once, the complainant has already received the NOC and Form No.35 from the O.Ps. then he has no occasion to agitate the matter and the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost being devoid of merits.

7.           From the letter dated 18.11.2014, Ex.C1, it is evident that Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, asked Sh.Jorawar Singh, to release the vehicle to the complainant and to obtain acknowledgment from him. The plea of the O.Ps. is that they have handed over the NOC and form No.35 to the complainant in the year 2014 itself as Sh. Mandip Sharma, had received the said documents from them on behalf of the complainant. Whereas the stand of the complainant is that he never authorized Sh. Mandip Sharma, to collect the said documents on his behalf from the O.Ps., he being the employee of the O.P. No.1, handed over the NOC and Form No.35 to him on 05.09.2016. In order to prove that OPs handed over the NOC and form No.35 to Sh. Mandip Sharma, on behalf of complainant has not placed on record any document, which shows that the complainant had authorized Sh. Mandip Sharma, to collect the NOC and Form No.35 on his behalf. Thus, in the absence of any documentary proof, we do not find any substance in the said plea of the O.Ps. and have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the complainant that he received the said documents in the year 2016. Since, the O.Ps. handed over the NOC and Form No.35 to the complainant in the year 2016 i.e. after a delay of almost two years from the date of purchase of the vehicle in question, they are thus, liable to compensate the complainant adequately, for the financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the O.Ps. be directed to pay to the complainant a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  

8.                In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and directed the O.Ps. to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall pay interest @ 7% per annum, on the awarded amount i.e. 1,00,000/- from 19.1.2017, i.e. the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization.

9.                 The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith,     free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and      consigned to Record Room.

 

          ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

          Dated: 02.06.2017                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER SINGH)

                                                                               MEMBER.