DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

J.S. Rathor s/o Late Dr. B.S. Rathor, R/o T-II/13, Sector 25, Panjab University Campus, Chandigarh.

                                                        ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

Manjit Singh s/o Amer Singh, C/o Singh Car Bazaar, Booth No. 466, Sector 48-C, Chandigarh.

---- Opposite Party 

BEFORE:          SH. LAKHMAN SHARMA                          PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                              MEMBER

Argued By:   Complainant in person.

                                Sh. Karan Singh, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party on the ground that the Complainant in order to buy a second hand car approached the Opposite Party who in turn showed 1997 model Maruti car parked close to the premises of Opposite Party. While striking this deal which was settled at Rs.48,000/- of which Rs.10,000/- was received as advance and another amount of Rs.38,000/- was to be paid in one month’s time. Complainant has attached Annexure P-1 the payment receipt wherein the entire detail of the deal is mentioned. One Mr. Gurnam Singh who is mentioned as a mechanic was a party to the present deal and his name also figures in Ex.P1 as witness. Gurnam Singh has given his opinion that the vehicle in question required minor repairs that he himself promised to do and their was no major fault with the vehicle in question. Believing the assessment of Gurnam Singh, the Complainant made a payment of advance money on 6.8.2010.

2]             The Complainant claims that immediately after 3 days one more Mechanic namely Mukhtiar Singh visited the Opposite Party and on his inspection of the vehicle, Mr. Mukhtiar Singh disclosed to the Complainant that the fault with the vehicle in question is a serious one and would cost Rs.4000/- to fix the same.  The Complainant was shocked at such a revelation. As the Complainant had planned to buy the vehicle on the same day and was ready with the remaining amount of money, but on coming to know about such a defect made up his mind to call off the deal and demanded the refund of Rs.10,000/- made 2 days earlier.

3]             The Opposite Party who claimed that the owner of the vehicle is one Mr. Baljit Singh and is out of station, who failed to respond to the call of the Complainant. Complainant claims that as he was not aware of Mr. Baljit Singh being the owner and the money was handed over to Mr. Manjit Singh, so in these circumstances, it was the responsibility of Mr. Manjit Singh to return him the money.  Thereafter, on repeated visits Mr. Manjit Singh claimed that he would refund the Complainant his money as and when the vehicle is sold to some another customer during the festival season of Diwali. But till date no money has been paid and at the same time, the Complainant is also asked to look into the terms and conditions of the receipt wherein the forfeiture of the amount paid is cited as a footnote. The Complainant had also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party, but claims that no reply is forthcoming for the side of the Opposite Party on that score.

4]             Aggrieved of the attitude of the Opposite Party, Complainant has filed the present Complaint, claiming refund of Rs.10,000/-, along with interest @18% p.a.; cost of litigation and overall compensation for harassment of severe mental, physical and financial agony caused.

5]             Opposite Parties have has filed their reply/version contesting the claim of the Complainant and has taken preliminary submission to the effect that the agreement signed by the Complainant on the payment receipt with his open eyes which mentions “advance will not be refunded if the purchaser turns a defaulter”.

6]             The Opposite Parties claims that as the Complainant has himself disclosed that having paid Rs.10,000/- on 6.8.2010 after having completely inspected the vehicle and the due date for the payment of remaining amount was fixed as 1.9.2010. The Complainant himself has backed out from the agreement; the vehicle in question was later on sold on 11.3.2011 (Annexure R-1) after having waited for nearly 7 months. Hence, the Complainant having himself defaulted to the promise cannot claim any relief from this Forum.

7]             The Opposite Parties have also taken objections to the fact that the Complainant is not a consumer as well as the respondent is a service provider as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the Complainant is not competent to file the present complaint.

8]             The Opposite Parties have repeated the preliminary objections while answering the averments of the complaint in his para-wise reply on merits. The Opposite Parties have admitted to the fact that the receipt (Annexure P-1), the receipt of amount of Rs.10,000-/- in advance is a valid agreement which the Complainant has failed to honour and in the same breath the Opposite Parties have also brought on record an unmarked annexure claimed to be Annexure R-1 by the Opposite Parties to prove that the same vehicle was later on sold to one Inderjit Singh on 11.3.2011 after the Complainant had failed to abide by the terms and conditions of Annexure P-1.  Opposite Parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint, as the same being devoid of any merit.

9]             Parties led their respective evidences.

10]           Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the Complainant in person and ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

11]           The present complaint filed by the Complainant is based on Annexure P-1 from where it flows that the vehicle in question was purchased by the Complainant after having paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as advance money towards the consideration amount of Rs.48,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.38,000/- was to be paid on or before 1.9.2010.  While going through this document Annexure P-1 it has come to light that under the column of signature of seller name of Manjeet Singh i.e. Opposite Party is mentioned and one Gurnam Singh is witness to this deal. The Complainant while claiming that Manjeet Singh who was actually not the owner but a go-between in the said deal and Manjeet Singh had claimed that a commission would be charged from both the parties to the sale, on the maturity of the deal. Though it is clear from Annexure P-1 that Manjeet Singh while signing this document has claimed himself to be the Seller of the vehicle in question. However neither the Complainant nor Manjeet Singh (Opposite Party) has brought on record any document to prove as to who the actual owner is. However, the foot note of Annexure P-1 clearly mentions the terms & conditions without mentioning as to who is the receiver of the commission. The Complainant has also attached a photocopy of the visiting card of a concern with a name of Singh Car Bazar wherein Manjeet Singh is shown as its Prop./Owner and the same visiting card also mentions that the sale and purchase of new and old cars is dealt on commission basis. 

12]           From the document Annexure P-1 one fact is established that the Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- as advance money for the purchase of car in question. That an amount against commission too was to be paid on this deal becoming successful was also to be paid. The Opposite Party has clearly failed to distinguish itself from either the owner of the vehicle or being a commission agent in this particular deal. However, this fact becomes clear from Annexure R-1 which is a document submitted by the Opposite Party while claiming that the vehicle has further been sold on 11.3.2011 while going through this document it is evident that the seller of the vehicle is one Davinder Katoch. Hence the Opposite Party is definitely a commission agent who at the time of selling the vehicle to the Complainant claimed himself to be the owner of the vehicle to the Complainant and signed the receipt Annexure P-1 in that capacity. From these two documents another fact comes to the light that the Opposite Party is also indulging in an unfair trade practice for the reason that for the same vehicle, he had shown himself to be the Owner, but at a later stage, from his own document, it has become clear that he was not the owner of the vehicle in question. 

13]           The Complainant while submitting his replication to rebut the claim of the Opposite Party submitted in their version has brought another fact to prove that the vehicle in question was over priced because the deal that was finalized with the Complainant was for Rs.48,000/-; whereas, while selling the same vehicle after six months, it was sold for Rs.26,500/- as mentioned in Annexure R-1 of the Opposite Party. The Complainant is categorical in his replication that while selling the vehicle to him the Opposite Party had claimed the vehicle to be in a perfect condition and while doing so, the Opposite Party had taken the help of Gurnam Singh who was a Mechanic in their neighbourhood. The Complainant claims that from the variation in the price the allegations of the vehicle being in a bad shape are true. 

14]           We feel that the Opposite Party while contesting the claim of the Complainant and raising allegations about the Complainant not being a consumer fall flat on the ground as the Opposite Party itself has failed to clearly mention its own role in the said two different deals. It is evident from these two documents that the Opposite Party deliberately creates such documents in order to cheat their unsuspecting customers. The two different receipts issued by the Opposite Party are un-numbered documents. At the same time, the Opposite Party has owned both these documents to be from its own records. Hence, in these circumstances, the admission on the part of the Opposite Party about the two documents, which are divergent to each other, proves that the Opposite Party while doing a business of sale and purchase are not keeping their records in order. At the same time it is also evident that while acting in such a manner the Opposite Party is trying to set-off its responsibilities towards its customers.  As the amount of commission is not mentioned on these receipts the Opposite Party cannot claim the benefit in the absence of such a clause. 

15]           The above observations compel us to believe that the grievances of the Complainant are genuine and the act & conduct of the Opposite Party while striking a deal with the Complainant of a vehicle which was not registered in their name but they had made a false claim about its ownership to the Complainant, in such a circumstances the Opposite Party can not escape its liability while citing the clauses mentioned as footnote of the payment receipt (Annexure P-1 & R-1). The claim of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the second clause of the footnote that “in un-matured deal commission will be charged both side”. From this clause it is clearly evident that the Opposite Party has retained the amount of the Complainant completely in an illegal manner because they have failed to confirm as to how much amount was to be charged as commission and that they have qualified to retain the entire Rs.10,000/- of the Complainant against such commission of a deal that has gone sour.  

16]           Hence, from the above observations, it is evident that the Opposite Party is deficient in service as claimed by the Complainant, and at the same time is also indulging in unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Party. We allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to: -

[a]      Refund Rs.10,000/- retained by the Opposite Party;

[b]      Pay to the Complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- against compensation for causing inconvenience, mental agony & harassment;

16]           The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on Rs.15,000/- till it is paid.

17]           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01^st March, 2012.                                                                                     

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER