DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAS NAGAR

                                        Consumer Complaint No.179 of 2015                                       Date of institution: 16.04.2015

                                                Date of Decision: 06.12.2021

Mohinder Kaur daughter of Shri Pritam Singh, resident of House No.1285-A, Ranjit Nagar, Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

…….Complainant

Versus

2. Shri Aman, Managing Director of Mehar International Marketing (P) Ltd. authorised dealer of Piaggio Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. having its office at B-26, Phase-3, Ind. Area, Mohali.

3. Shri Pawan, Sale Manager, Mehar International Marketing (P) Ltd. authorised dealer of Piaggio Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. having its office at B-26, Phase-3, Ind. Area, Mohali.

……..Opposite Parties

                        Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member.

Present:    None for the complainant.

                        Shri Munish Kumar, Counsel for OPs No.1 to 3

                        None for OP No.4.

                        None for OP No.5.  

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President

ORDER

                The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs for short) on the ground that the CC in order to purchase new auto Make Piaggio APE D3S A/R PAXX, on 12.08.2014 went to OP No.1 to 3 on finance scheme and was asked by the OPs to pay down payment of Rs.49,000/-. Since the CC and her husband wanted to purchase the vehicle as a public carrier,  the CC paid Rs.25,000/- in cash on 12.08.2014 vide receipt No.6809 and thereafter the CC paid Rs.5,000/- in cash on 13.08.2014 vide receipt No.6833. The CC also issued cheque No.364544 for Rs.19,000/- of Punjab National Bank Branch Village Gharuan, but due to some difficulty the cheque was returned back to the CC and was not encashed. It is alleged that the CC paid Rs.19,000/- in cash to OP No.1 and 2, but OP No.1 and 2 did not issue any receipt. Thereafter the insurance agent of OP No.4 insured the vehicle purchased by the CC. It is alleged that the CC also spent Rs.2,000/- on the accessories of the vehicle. It is alleged that on 02.09.2014 the vehicle developed some defect and the CC took the vehicle to OP No.1 to 3, but the vehicle was not returned to her. The CC could not apply for registration of the vehicle which was having temporary number as all the original papers of the vehicle also went in possession of the OPs alongwith the vehicle. The total price of the auto was Rs.1,93,480/-. It is alleged that the CC visited OP No.1 to 3   and asked to return the vehicle, but the OPs refused to return the same and the CC was asked to come after few days and did not hand over the vehicle. Even the OPs did not return the down payment to the CC. Ultimately the OPs told the CC that the vehicle could not be financed in the name of the CC and they will also not return the vehicle to the CC and will also not refund the down payment to the CC. After some days, the CC came to know that OP No.1 to 3 have re-sold the same vehicle of CC to OP No.5 as new vehicle and OP No.4 has issued new insurance cover   in the name of the purchaser i.e. OP No.5.

                  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought refund of Rs.51,000/- paid by the CC as down payment alongwith compensation  for financial loss/mental pain and harassment to the tune of Rs.2.00 lakhs and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.  The complaint of the CC is signed and supported by affidavit.

2.             In reply, OP No.1 to 3 have raised number of preliminary objections, but they have mainly rebutted the contentions of the complaint by stating that the CC had approached OP No.1 on 12/13.08.2014 for the purchase of above said vehicle which was costing Rs.1,93,980/-, besides Rs.500/- for temporary number.  The CC had paid an advance payment to the tune of Rs.25,000/- vide receipt No.6809 dated 12.08.2014 and Rs.5,000/- vide receipt No.6833 dated 13.08.2014. The CC also given cheque for a sum of Rs.19,000/- to the OPs but the cheque was dishonoured by the bank on presentation. Despite repeated demands, the CC did not pay the balance amount of Rs.19,000/- to OP No.1 to 3 and only Rs.30,000/- were received from the CC. Rs.19,000/- which the CC was supposed to pay. was including  amount of insurance premium. After booking amount, request was made by the CC to finance the remaining amount of the vehicle on production of document at the earliest, but inspite of repeated requests, the CC failed to provide required document for raising loan and failed to complete formalities and also failed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.19,000/-  against the dishonoured cheque. Ultimately the CC visited OP No.1 and 3 and showed her inability to get the vehicle financed. Even OP No.1 served a legal notice to the CC for doing the needful, but the CC failed. As such under compelling circumstances, OP No.1 further sold the vehicle to OP No.5 with full knowledge and consent of the CC. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on their part have challenging the veracity of the complaint, OP No.1 to 3 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.4 has also filed detailed reply to further challenge the veracity of the complaint mainly on technical grounds. The reply of OP No.4 is nothing but denial of the allegations of the complaint by terming the complaint as misconceived and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.            Neither any written version was filed nor did anyone appear on behalf of OP No.5. As such the complaint was ordered to be proceeded further against OP No.5 vide order dated 17.11.2015.

5.            In support of her complaint, the CC has submitted her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15. On the other hand, OP No.1 to 3 have submitted affidavit of Shri Amninder Singh Ex.OP-1/1 and affidavit Shri Pawan Tyagi, Executive Ex. OP-3/1 alongwith documentEx.OP-1, Ex.OP-2,  Ex.OP-3/2 and Ex.OP-3/2.  OP No.4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ms. Shivali Sharma, Sr. Legal Manager Ex.OP-4/A and documents Ex.OP-4/1 to Ex.OP-4/3 and closed evidence.

6.             We have heard counsel for OP No.1 to 3 and have gone through the file. None appeared on behalf of complainant and OP No.4.

7.              As far as OP No.5 is concerned, we feel that the CC is not consumer of OP No.5. OP No.5 has got no direct link with the CC and has simply purchased the vehicle from OP No.1 to 3 on payment. As far as OP No.4 is concerned, OP No.4 has simply insured the vehicle in question and that too on the request of OP No.1 to 3. There is no clarity in the complaint that any amount was paid by the CC to OP No.4 directly. As such, we feel that no deficiency in service is made out against OP No.4 and 5.

8.             It is proved on file that the CC could pay only Rs.30,000/- to OP No.1 to 3 and could not pay the remaining amount of Rs.19,000/- which was the down payment. No doubt the CC has specifically alleged that she had paid the remaining amount of Rs.19,000/- in cash to OP No.1 to 3, but there is no document to support her contention. We feel, that the CC only paid Rs.30,000/- in two installments i.e. one of Rs.25,000/- and the second of Rs.5,000/- for which OP No.1 to 3 duly issued two receipts. It is not possible that if the CC paid Rs.19,000/- in cash to OP No.1 to 3, they will not issue any receipt. This contention of the CC is definitely without merit.

9.             On the other hand,  OP No.1 to 3 have admitted that they have received Rs.30,000/- from the CC, but since the CC has failed to pay the remaining down payment of Rs.19,000/- to OP No.1 to 3, out of which they have even paid insurance premium of the vehicle. The CC could not give required documents to OP No.1 to 3 in order to get the vehicle financed and in that event OP No.1 to 3 had no option except to sell the vehicle to somebody else. Surprisingly there is nothing in the complaint that the CC had completed formalities for getting the vehicle financed from OP No.1 to 3. Even there is no cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence on the file that the CC completed the down payment of Rs.49,000/- in favour of OP No.1 to 3. However, it is admitted by OP No.1 to 3 that they have received Rs.30,000/- from the CC. We feel, that the CC appears to be a poor lady and at the same time OP No.1 to 3 had no right to retain the amount of Rs.30,000/- of the CC which they had taken as part down payment from the CC. We also feel, that it was incumbent upon OP No.1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- to this poor lady immediately once the vehicle was sold to other customer by OP No.1 to 3.  It is writ large on the file that the CC was unable to arrange the balance payment of Rs.19,000/- and further could not provide the required documents to OP No.1 to 3 for seeking finance of the vehicle which was intended to be purchased from OP No.1 to 3.

10.           In order to provide substantial justice, we partly allow the present complaint and direct OP No.1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- to the CC alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the dates of receipt till actual refund. We further direct OP No.1 to 3 to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the CC. Complaint against OP No.4 and 5 is dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be consigned to record room.

Announced

December, 06 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

I agree.

(Gagandeep Gosal)