Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 287.
Instituted on : 22.06.2018.
Decided on : 21.11.2019.
Mahesh s/o Moti Ram age 31 years, R/o VPO Bhali Tehsil and District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., through its Managing Director Auto Motive Sector, Mahindra Tower, Akurti Road, Kandiwali(East) Mumbai-400101, India.
- Lohchab Motor Company Pvt. Ltd. Authorized Dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 1st Floor Rohtak Tower Delhi Bye-pass Rohtak Haryana, Pin-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Phool Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Pardeep Mittal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a Mahindra Pickup goods-carrier Model CBC PS B.S.I color white without body from respondent no.2 on dated 30.03.2018. That complainant paid Rs.10000/- as booking amount of the vehicle on dated 26.03.2018 to respondent no.2 and on dated 30.03.2018, he paid Rs.95900/- to the sale counter of respondent no.2 as down payment of vehicle and loan of Rs.490000/- was sanctioned through Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. He paid Rs.28774/- for insurance, Rs.7468/- for motor incidental charges (loan suraksha bima), Rs.1050/- for temporary numbers. In this way the complainant paid an amount of Rs.633192/- to the respondent no.2 and he also spent Rs.65200/- on fitting of the vehicle body extra and respondents not delivered the policy of Loan Suraksha Bima to the complainant till date. That officials of the opposite party no.2 assured the complainant that due to closing the year, company has offered free registration of vehicle and the registration certificate will be provided to the complainant within a week and due to this assurance, form no.20,21, 22 and invoice were not provided to the complainant. After full and final payment, the said vehicle was delivered to the complainant through delivery challan no.2847 on dated 30.03.2018 by respondent no.2. That on 03.04.2018 complainant visited the opposite party to know about the progress report of registration of his vehicle, they collected Rs.1050/- for temporary number and asked the complainant to come after two or three days for registration certificate. After that complainant visited the office of opposite party no.2 many times to get the R.C. of his vehicle but the officials of OP No.2 told that the amount of Rs.85000/- was pending and lastly refused to give form no.20,21, 22 and invoice to the complainant. Complainant made so many complaints and also served a legal notice on dated 27.05.2018 through email but no reply given by the respondents. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to return back the cost of vehicle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that payment of amount of vehicle to the respondent no.2 is a matter of record. That contents regarding any offer of free registration of vehicle being offered by respondent no.2 is denied for want of knowledge and proof. That no such offer was floated by respondent no.1. That offer/commitment if any, made by respondent no.2 has been made by the respondent no.2 in its individual capacity and answering respondent has no concern with same. That the matter/correspondence is between the complainant and respondent no.2 in their individual capacity and the answering respondent has no concern with the same. That respondent no.1 is not the agent of answering respondent. That there is no privity of contract between the answering respondent and complainant. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant approached the answering opposite party for purchase of Mahindra Pickup and deposited an amount of Rs.10000/- as booking amount and also deposited Rs.95900/- to the answering opposite party vide voucher no.252 and took the delivery of said vehicle, after getting the same insured by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through the answering respondent which costs Rs.28774/-. That the cost/price of the vehicle was Rs.638862/- and complainant applied for loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance, who sanctioned an amount of Rs.490000/- as loan for the aforesaid vehicle. The answering opposite party charged Rs.1000/- towards temporary number, Rs.2000/- for incidental charges, Rs.3000/- for bank file charges and Rs.7264/- as Loan Suraksha Bima. In this way the complainant was under liability to pay an amount of Rs.85000/- towards the answering respondent but the complainant did not pay the aforesaid amount despite repeated requests. It is pertinent to mention here that amount of bank file charges and Loan Suraksha Bima is included under head “Mahindra & Mahindra Finance” in the accompanied ledger account. That complainant did not pay the amount of Rs.85000/- to the answering respondent despite repeated requests. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW-A to Ex.CW-H and closed his evidence on 25.02.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on dated 16.08.2019. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/4 and closed his evidence on 16.08.2019.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspect of case.
5. In the present case ledger account has been placed on record by the opposite party Ex.RW2/2, which itself shows that an amount of Rs.10000/- had been paid by the complainant to the respondent in cash on 24.03.2018, and another amount of Rs.95900/- has been paid in cash on 30.03.2018. Thereafter an amount of Rs.28774/- has been debited in the ledger account of complainant on account of insurance and Rs.638862/- on account of sale of Fourwheeler Mahindra and amount of Rs.159126/- has been debited as margin money on 31.03.2018. Meaning thereby, the complainant had only paid an amount of Rs.95000/- and Rs.10000/- in cash to the opposite party. An amount of Rs.490000/- had been paid by the complainant through financer to the respondent but the complainant failed to prove or produce any certificate or record or receipt of payment to prove that he had paid the remaining amount to the respondent till date. Moreover he moved an application before the concerned police authority and issued a legal notice to the respondent. The reply to the legal notice dated 13.04.2018 has been given by the respondent on 26.04.2018.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the complainant he had deposited all the amount with the respondents whereas as per respondents, an amount of Rs.85000/- is still outstanding towards the complainant, which could be proved on file by both the parties through their respective evidence. As per averments made in the application Ex.CWF filed by the complainant with S.P.Rohtak, alleging a cheating against opposite parties attracting penal sections 420 of IPC which falls within the purview of criminal proceedings and the matter in dispute requires elaborate oral and documentary evidence for proper adjudication of complicated issues that are involved. This can only be possible in appropriated trial in the Court of competent jurisdiction and not under the Consumer Protection Act where matters are decided in a summary manner. Hence we dismiss the present complaint on this limited ground with liberty to the complainant to seek any other appropriate remedy at the appropriate Courts of law, if so desired or advised. However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of delay under section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which the proceedings remained pending before this Consumer Forum.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.11.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
