DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:442 of 2010] Date of Institution :19.07.2010 Date of Decision :06.01.2012 ------------------------------------------ Sh. Rupinder Singh son of S. Ujjal Singh resident of House No.4668, Darshan Vihar, Sector 68, Mohali. ---Complainant. (VERSUS) - Modern Automobiles, authorised dealer of Maruti Cars & Commercial Vehicles, 4 M.W., Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party. - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.174-175, 1st Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
(Note Fresh/Correct address of Opposite Party No.2 furnished by the complainant, in compliance of order dated 18.08.2011, is ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.24-25 (Above Gopal Sweets), Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh). …Performa Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Sunil Toni, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Aftab Singh, Advocate proxy for Opposite Party No.1. Sh. R. S. Dhull, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. Sh. Rupinder Singh son of S. Ujjal Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that opposite party No.1 be directed:- i) To deliver the car OR to return an amount of Rs.1,08,263/- paid as down payment along with interest @18% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as costs of litigation; iv) Award any other relief, which this Forum deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that being allured by the advertisement in Hindustan Times, the complainant along with his brother visited the premises of opposite party No.1 for the purchase of a car (Alto). He wanted to get the said car financed from some Bank. On 5.7.2010, the complainant visited the premises of opposite party No.1. The employees present there assured that they will facilitate the sanctioning of loan from I.C.I.C.I Bank. So, on 7.7.2010, he again visited the premises of opposite party No.1 along with the required documents. He was made to fill up the Order Booking Form. He was assured that he would get the car on 8.7.2010. According to the complainant, at the asking of opposite party No.1, he visited the office of opposite party No.2 and delivered all the required documents for sanctioning of the loan. Thereafter, on 8.7.2010, he again visited the premises of opposite party No.1 and made the down payment of Rs.1,08,826/- against the total costs of the car i.e. Rs.2,83,413/-. He also filled other documents required for sanctioning of the loan and completed all the formalities. It has also been averred that the opposite party No.1 also filled the warranty card and other documents required for sale of the car. However, the car was not delivered to him by opposite party No.1 despite repeated requests. According to the complainant, non delivery of the car amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by opposite party No.1, it has been admitted that the complainant visited its premises on 3.7.2010 for purchase of Alto car. He wanted to get the said car financed from some financial institution. It has also been admitted that on 7.7.2010, the complainant visited the premises and filled the Order Booking Form. According to opposite party No.1, the process of sanction of loan generally takes one day, so, the complainant was advised to take the delivery of the car on the next day i.e. 8.7.2010 on payment of the sale consideration. It has also been admitted that on 8.7.2010, the complainant again visited the premises and made the down payment of Rs.1,08,263/-. The case of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant applied for loan to H.D.F.C Bank. However, the said Bank did not sanction the loan as the brother of the complainant namely Sh. Gurpreet Singh, representing himself to be the Proprietor of firm M/s Preet Tyre Works, Motor Market, Manimajra, had taken a loan for the purchase of a vehicle. The complainant also represented himself the Proprietor of the said firm. So, the complainant was asked to clarify the matter. Thus, according to opposite party No.1, the complainant failed to bring the cheque of the remaining amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. However, he insisted for the delivery of the car. As the complainant had not made the entire payment of the car, so, the opposite party No.1 refused to deliver the car to him. The complainant made hue and cry. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 took back the original receipts given to the complainant and refunded him the amount of Rs.1,08,263/- plus Rs.58/- on the same day. The complainant also executed a receipt to this effect. Thus, according to opposite party No.1, the entire amount deposited by the complainant as down payment was refunded to him and nothing is outstanding against him. In these circumstances, according to opposite party No.1, there is no deficiency in service on its part. It has further been pleaded that the complainant deceitfully took away the papers concerning the sale of the car and forged them. It has specifically been mentioned that opposite party No.1 never asked the complainant to take loan from I.C.I.C.I Bank. In these circumstances, the opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint. 4. Notice was given to the opposite party No.2, who was duly served through Process Server. Since, nobody appeared on its behalf, therefore, opposite party No.2 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 29.09.2011. However, on 21.11.2011, one Sh. R. S. Dhull, Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and joined the proceedings at this stage of arguments and did not opt to file any application for setting aside the order dated 29.9.2011 vide which it was proceeded against exparte in order to file written statement. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record. 6. Admittedly, the complainant visited the premises of opposite party No.1 on 8.7.2010 and made a down payment of Rs.1,08,263/- against the total cost of car i.e. Rs.2,83,413/-. For the remaining amount, the complainant wanted to get the car financed from some Bank. The case of the complainant is that at the behest of opposite party No.1, he approached I.C.I.C.I Bank for sanction of the loan and he filled all the required documents. He also handed over the documents required for sanction of the loan to the said Bank. However, the complainant has nowhere stated that the loan was sanctioned and the remaining amount was also offered by him to the opposite party No.1. On the other hand, the case of opposite party No.1 is that the complainant had applied for loan with the H.D.F.C. Bank and the said Bank did not sanction the loan and made some queries. For the best reasons known to the complainant, he has failed to place on record the copy of the document showing that he had applied for sanction of loan to I.C.I.C.I Bank. Nor there is any evidence on record to prove that the said loan was sanctioned and the complainant had offered payment of the remaining sale consideration of the car. 7. As the complainant had not offered the entire sale consideration, opposite party No.1 was within its right not to deliver the car to him. So, non-delivery of the car, in such circumstances, does not amount to deficiency in service. 8. Now the question arises as to whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.1,08,263/- or not? 9. The case of the complainant is that he had deposited a sum of Rs.1,08,263/- on 8.7.2010 for the purchase of the car. This fact has been admitted by opposite party No.1. However, the case of opposite party No.1 is that the said amount was refunded to the complainant on the same day and the complainant had executed a receipt to this effect. The receipt has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. The complainant has not filed any counter affidavit to rebut the fact that a sum of Rs.1,08,263/- was not received by him. At the time of arguments, it was argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the signatures on the receipt are forged and the complainant had not signed this document. The onus to prove this fact was on the complainant. The complainant did not opt to get his signatures compared with the signature on Annexure R-1. Nor there is any affidavit to the effect that receipt (Annexure R-2) do not bear the signatures of the complainant. In these circumstances, from the material on record, it is proved that the opposite party No.1 has refunded a sum of Rs.1,08,263/- to the complainant on 8.7.2010 itself. So, the complainant is not entitled to the refund of the said amount again. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 on this score also. 10. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 6th January 2012. Sd.- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.442 of 2010 Present: None. --- As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. [MADHU MUTNEJA] [LAKSHMAN SHARMA] [J. S. SIDHU] 06.01.2012 (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
