Case No. 175/2016   

IN THE MATTER OF

Raghav Enterprises by authorized signatory Mr. Raksh Pal Singh Raghav Advocate s/o Sri Raghuvir Singh Raghav R/o Lohiya Nagar G.T. Road, Banna Devi, Aligarh

                                           V/s

1. M.D. Sonalika International Tractor vill chak gujran PO Piplanwala Jalandhar Road Hoshiyarpur Punjab.
2. M.D. /G.M. /Onwer Lotiya Motors Ltd. Hoshiyarpur B-17 MCH 877 Railway Road Village Nasrala Jalandhar Road, Hoshiyarpur Punjab.
3. Jnaradan Sharma s/o sri Satyaveer Sharma r/o gali no.3 Rajendra Nagar Near Prthibha Colony Koil AligarhM/s Chirag Traders, Shop No. A18 Naveen Mandi Sthal, Khair Aligarh through authorized signatory

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for issuing direction to the op to pay the security amount Rs.50000, amount Rs.16903 and Rs.41000 for to credit notes and  compensation for mental agony at Rs.275000 with interest @ 18% per annum.
2.  Complainant has stated that the complainant was appointed by the Op no.1 as authorized dealer of its company Sonlika tractors through Op no.3. After some time Op no.1 changed its name as Lotiya motors (op no.2). Complainant did not continue to remain dealer of the Op no.1 on account of its lowering down the reputation and claimed the amount as prayed.            
3. Op no.1 has stated that the alleged appointment letter is false and fabricated document and op no.1 has no dealing with complainant. Moreover allegations do not fall under the consumer protection Act and the complainant has been wrongly filed. 
4. Op no.2 stated WS that the Op no.1 has sold the company to op no.2. Complainant was appointed dealer by the Op no.1 and therefore Op no.2 has nothing to do with the matter in dispute.
5. Op no.3 stated in WS that Op no.1 and 2 are related to each other and complaint case deserves to be allowed.
6. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Ops have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
8. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
9. Complainant has deposed that he was appointed dealer by the OP no.1. Complainant rendered the services for the OP no.1 and both the complainant and OP no .1 were related by the contractual obligation to fulfil reciprocal promises by each other and therefore the complainant and OP no.1 are related to each other as consumer and service provider and vice versa. Thus the dispute is termed as consumer dispute and the OP no.1 has failed to repay the amount alleged by the complainant and liable to pay the same. 
10. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
11. We hereby direct the Op no.1 to pay the complainant the security amount Rs.50000, amount Rs.16903 and Rs.41000 for to credit notes and  compensation for mental agony at Rs.10000 with interest @ 12% per annum.
12. Op shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.