DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 2199/2015
Date of Institution : 23.12.2015
Date of Decision : 22.04.2016
Harmandeep Singh aged about 19 years son of Major Singh, resident of Ram Bagh Road, Near Baba Jiwan Singh Quarter No. 1, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., College Road, Barnala.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Bus Stand, Sangrur.
3. Jagraj Singh son of Buta Singh, resident of Ward No. 18, Gali No. 3, Ranjit Nagar, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. RS Sidhu counsel for the complainant
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Harmandeep Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act ( In short as Act) against Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and others (In short the opposite parties)
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that on 20.8.2015 the complainant purchased a Tata Truck bearing registration No. HR-68-9446. Sh. Jagraj Singh (opposite party No. 3) as per his assurance gave the guarantee and submitted the requisite documents in favour of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 for obtaining loan. Accordingly, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 advanced a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- in favour of the opposite party No. 3 at Barnala in the month of August 2015 and the same was payable in 45 monthly installments worth Rs. 23,500/- each and RC of the said vehicle was issued in the name of the opposite party No. 3. However, the expenses of the RC were incurred by the complainant and the possession of the said vehicle/truck was with the complainant from the date of its purchase i.e. 20.8.2015 and this fact is also clear from the power of attorney. It is further averred that an agreement executed by the opposite party No. 3 in favour of the complainant on 27.8.2015 is duly attested by the Notary Public, Rajpura. Moreover, the opposite party No. 3 duly signed the blank form No. 29, form No. 30 and sale affidavit which clearly shows that the said vehicle/truck is the ownership of the complainant.
3. It is further averred that the complainant duly paid two installments of Rs. 23,500/- in respect of the said truck having months of August and September 2015 but due to some unavoidable family circumstances complainant failed to repay the monthly installment for the month of October 2015 and due to this the opposite party No. 3 asked the complainant that why the complainant failed to repay the said installment. On this the complainant explained his family circumstances to the opposite party No. 3 and also requested the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to give some time to pay the pending installment but the opposite party No. 3 instead of understanding the circumstances started using filthy language towards the complainant and threatened him that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 will took forcible possession of the said truck. It is further averred that in the last week of November 2015 the opposite parties took the forcible possession of the said truck from the complainant on the pretext of non payment of installment and at that time the complainant was having goods/BI Panther CB Puducherry 20” Green L4 worth of Rs. 16,81,410/- in the said truck. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant requested the opposite parties many times that now he is ready to deposit the pending installments but the opposite parties did not hear the complainant and due to this the complainant failed to ply his vehicle and deprived from his livelihood and thus he has suffered financial loss and the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to accept the pending installments from the complainant and further to give the peaceful possession of the said truck alongwith full material lying in the said truck and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties were duly served but they did not appear, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into evidence copy of power of attorney Ex.C-1, copy of agreement dated 27.8.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of blank form No. 29 and 30 Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5, copy of builty invoice/bill Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8, copy of RC Ex.C-9, copy of insurance policy Ex.C-10, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-11, copy of EMI slip Ex.C-12, copy of RC bearing Truck No. HR-68-9446 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
7. Firstly, it is to be established whether the complainant is a consumer. The certificate of insurance-cum-policy Ex.C-10 shows that the owner of the vehicle is Jagraj Singh and the vehicle was insured by him. In the complaint it is the case of the complainant that he was not having required papers and he was having good relations with Jagraj Singh opposite party No. 3 and due to this reason opposite party No. 3 took a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and completed all the required documents. It is also the case of the complainant that on 20.8.2015 he purchased the Tata Truck and possession of said truck was with him from the date of its purchase and installments were also paid by the complainant at the rate of Rs. 23,500/- monthly. However, it is very interesting that the complainant has not placed on record any invoice/bill showing the purchase of vehicle in his name. No RC was placed on record showing the name of the complainant. No doubt the complainant has placed on record power of attorney Ex.C-1 executed by Jagraj Singh in favour of the complainant as well as one agreement Ex.C-2. However, these documents cannot confer the ownership to the complainant as the registration certificate in favour of the complainant is a legal necessity. In the absence of any legal ownership document in favour of the complainant it cannot be said that the complainant has locus standi to file the present complaint against the financiers opposite parties No. 1 and 2 who had taken the vehicle in possession for non payment of the installments.
8. As a result of the above discussion there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed. However no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
22nd Day of April 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
