Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/69

Jaswant Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

MH Honda Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mohinderpal Singh, Adv

27 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                  Consumer Complaint No. :  69 of 21.08.2018

                                  Date of decision           :     27.11.2018

 

Jaswant Singh, son of Ram Singh, resident of Village Chaklan, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. 

                                                                    ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. M.H. Honda Automobiles, Near J.R. Theater, Kurali Road, Rupnagar through its proprietor
2. Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. North Regional Office, A-105, 1^st Floor, Iris Tech Park, Sector 48 Sohana Road, Gurgaon (Haryana) 122018  

                                                                             ....Opposite Parties

                                    Complaint under Section 12 of the                                               Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                         SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                         SH. AMRINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant  

Sh. Udhey Verma, Adv. counsel for O.Ps.  

 

                                             ORDER

 

               SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.          Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to deliver/handover the registration certificate, insurance policy, service book let along with other documents of the vehicle in question to the complainant; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation of physical, mental as well as financial harassment on account of their act and conduct to the complainant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase of vehicle till its realization; any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit be granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.  

2.     Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 08.11.2015, the complainant approached to the O.P. No.1 for the purchase of new Honda Active and the employees of the O.ps. shown all models of new Honda Activa and told to the complainant that the Honda Company will provide 1 year warranty to the complainant on purchase of new Honda Activa and whenever any part of the new active of the complainant does not work properly, then the complainant can contact them and they will repair said part immediately or also if need they can replace the same with new one free of cost, the employee of the O.P. No.1 also assured the complainant that in their agency they have to done all type of work or repairing of Activa/motorcycles or replacement of parts and they never harassed their customer regarding any complaint if any occurred and also assured that similarly they never harassed the complainant regarding any complaint, if the complainant purchased new Honda Activa from O.Ps agency and the O.P. No.1 also told that they have provided a best loan facility to their customer on the purchase of new Honda Activa. Swayed by the allurements given by the O.Ps. and on their assurance, the complainant has ready to purchase new Honda Activa and on that day employee of the O.P. No.1 has told that the complainant have to pay only Rs.7000/- as down payment and the complainant can take active to his home without any other expenses but on that day the complainant has only Rs.5000/- with him then the employee of the O.P. No.1 has told that if at this time the complainant paid Rs.5000/- then also he can take new active to his home and also told that other formalities will be done by their agency and also told that for remaining amount the O.Ps. will provide the loan facility to the complainant and the officials of the O.Ps. have also told that their company will prepare all the documents i.e. insurance, registration certificate etc and the complainant no need to pay any extra money for that purpose. O.Ps. deliver new Honda Activa to the complainant without any document or service book let etc. and only delivery challan has been given. After 30 days and when the registration certificate of said vehicle will be prepared by the concerned registration authority then they will call the complainant and then he will took the same from them along with other documents. After waiting for 30 days when no intimation was received by the complainant from the O.ps then the complainant approached the O.P. No.1 and demanded his documents then the O.P. No.1 started demanding more amount of Rs.6000/- by saying that the finance company has not passed the full loan amount and Rs.6000/- is due against the complainant after the sanctioning of loan and the complainant has to pay Rs.6000/- more for fulfillment of the transaction and also told that after the payment of Rs.6000/-the O.Ps. will got prepared all the documents and will delivered the same to the complainant within a short period. The complainant many times approached to the O.Ps. and requested them to deliver the documents but instead of delivering the documents the O.Ps threatening the complainant that if the complainant has not paid Rs.14500/- then the O.Ps. will take forcible possession of the active. After that complainant waited the O.Ps. call for a long period and also many times approached to the office of O.P. No.1 but always the O.P. No.1 and his employees started demanding more amount from the complainant and putting the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint 

  3.   On notice, O.Ps. appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not filed within time, same is time barred; that the complaint is liable to the dismissed due to non joining of necessary parties; that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it is stated that complainant has visited the showroom of O.P. No.1 and enquired about activa scooter and finance facility available which were explained to him. The complainant also enquired about the service and repair facility as also the warranty and extended warranty. As per bank statement, the bank has disbursed Rs.34870/- to the O.P. No.1. After adding Rs.5000/- paid on 8.11.2015 by the complainant and alleged payment of dated 23.12.2015 of Rs.6000/-, total amount comes to Rs.45870/- which is less than even the ex showroom price of Activa (Rs.50184). No allurements were given to the complainant which is evident from the contents of the complaint. The complainant has made a concocted story. The O.Ps. never given any threats for possession of the vehicle to the complainant. The O.P. No.1 reminded the complainant from time to time to pay the due amount but he did not pay any heed to its request. The alleged payment of Rs.6000/- has not been made to the OP No.1 though entry to that is appearing on the back side of delivery challan. That entry also states that balance amount still to be paid is Rs.14850/-. It proves that the complainant was well aware that the amount is still due from him to OP No.1 otherwise he would have raised objection and not after two and half year and would not have made the alleged payment of Rs.6000/-. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.     On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C6 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has tendered sworn affidavit of Sh. Sachin Gupta, Partner of MH Automobiles Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence 

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.     Complainant counsel Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, argued that Jaswant Singh, complainant purchased new Honda Activa from OP No.1 on 8.11.2015 with warranty of one year. On the day of sale, complainant paid Rs.7000/- to the OP and then paid Rs.6000/- on 23.12.2015 and the balance amount was paid to the OP through loan. Learned counsel prayed that when entire payment shall made to the OP and the vehicle delivered, but till today O.P. did not supply the necessary documents qua the sale/purchase as well as the RC and lastly prayed that complaint deserves to be allowecd being the deficient stand proves.

7.     On behalf of OPs. Sh. Udhey Verma, Advocate, appeared who made prayer that sale/purchase is pertaining to 8.11.2015 and the complaint was filed on 21.8.2018, so the complaint is beyond limitation. He also arguged that complainant relied upon the receipt Ex.C2, which proves the delivery of the vehicle dated 8.11.2015 and on the back of this document, the total price assessed of Rs.58,714/- out of which there was loan provision of Rs.48,250/- and the balance amount was to be paid by the complainant. Complainant only paid Rs.5000/- and the vehicle was delivered. As per the first payment, the balance amount was Rs.7000/-. But when the loan sanctioned then the bank has only sanctioned the loan of Rs.34,489/-. So the complainant was duty bound to pay the balance amount. The learned counsel by referring the documentary evidence, prayed that complainant paid Rs.6000/- on 23.12.2015 and settled the balance amount of Rs.14850/-, which is not paid till today. Lastly prayed that balance due and complaint is time barred and it deserves to be dismissed with cost.

8.     Firstly coming to the sale/purchase which is dated 8.11.2015 and vehicle was delivered on the same day. Complainant obtained loan and deposited the entire loan amount as admitted by both the counsels during the course of arguments. The complainant has also paid Rs.5000/- on the day of delivery of the possession of the Activa then receive Rs.6000/- on 23.12.2015. So it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable.

9.     Coming to the fact, whether the complaint is within limitation or is time barred. Complainant alleged the payment dated 8.11.2015 and 23.12.2015. At the same time, complainant counsel alleged that the deposit of EMI with the bank from time to time amounts continuity to limitation/recurring cause of action. But the same time OP counsel argued that the loan payment was between the complainant and the parties who advanced the loan. This fact cannot reflect the verdict of the forum. The submission made to dismiss the complaint on this score only.

10.   After considering the rival contentions of both the counsels, admittedly the purchase of the vehicle is dated 8.11.2015, two payments are made i.e. dated 08.11.2015 and 23.12.2015, the present complaint was filed on 21.8.2018. Meaning thereby the complaint is time barred and as per statue cause of action to file the complaint as per the enactment is two years from the date/issuance o0f receipts, which is dated 8.11.2015. At the same time, on the back of the documents, Ex.C2 the receipt depicts dated 23.12.2015. No doubt the notice issued to the OPs by the advocate of the complainant is dated 13.7.2018 but relying upon the notice, forum is unable to give the opinion in favour of the complainant qua the limitation of filing the complaint in favour of the complainant At the same time, OPs has placed on file Ex.OP1, affidavit, Ex.OP2 invoice dated 15.11.2015, photocopy of the policy of dated 15.11.2015, Sri Ram Finance Company certificate Ex.OP4, which is in existence w.e.f. 7.1.2016 and closing date 7.6.2018. Beside this the complainant placed on file account statement Ex.OP5 and reply to the notice Ex.OP6.

11.   After appreciating the document discussed above and appreciating the documents advanced by both the counsels, the forum has come to the conclusion that when the purchase is of 8.11.2015, the limitation for filing the complaint is two years from the same date and it comes to an end on 8.11.2017, whereas, the complaint was filed on 21.8.2018. Moreso, the documents proves the complainant not paid the entire sale price, which is admitted during the course of arguments. So the complaint is without merit. No relief can be granted in favour of complainant and he remains unable in proving deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

12.   In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stand dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

13.   The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                      ANNOUNCED                                                  (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                      Dated.27.11.2018                                        PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                            (AMRINDER SINGH)

                                                                                MEMBER