Delhi

North East

CC/175/2018

Smt. Mithlesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohd. Vakeel Ahmed - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

                                                 Complaint Case No.175/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Mithlesh W/o Sh. Rajesh R/o H.No. E-433 Street No. 13, E-Block Shastri Park, Delhi-53	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.             3.	Vakeel Ahmed S/o Mohd. Rafi R/o K-25/6, Street No. 20, Gangotri Vihar Ghonda, Delhi-53   Pooja Fineliease Ltd. Through its Authorized Rrepresentative KLJ Complex-I, Plot No. 70, B-39, Shivaji Marg, Opposite Moti Nagar, Police Station, Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15   Bhartiya E-Rickshaw Kindra (Berk) A-35, Main Gamri Road, Near Bhartiya State Bank, Ghonda, Delhi-110053	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                          DATE OF ORDER:

20.08.18 18.01.23 09.03.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

ORDER

 Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that she purchased an E-rickshaw by paying Rs. 5,000/- as booking amount on 19.05.17 and paid Rs. 25,000/- on 09.06.17 and the vehicle was handed over to Complainant on 12.06.17 by Opposite Party No.1 and same was financed by dealer. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 had obtained signature of Complainant on blank papers and on cheque dated 09.06.17 on pretext that they provide new E-Rickshaw of Rs. 1,18,000/- and Opposite Party No.1 will also provide subsidy from Govt. of Rs. 30,000/-. The Complainant stated that she paid Rs. 30,000/-on 09.06.17 and Rs. 8,100/- on 09.08.17 as instalment amount to Opposite Party No.1. On 15.09.17 Complainant raised objection to Opposite Party No.1 by stating that “Maine to Paise Nai Gadi Ke Diye Tumne Purani Gadi Di Aur Mere Se Signed Cheque Bhi Le Liya” and Opposite Party No.1 on 30.12.17 replied “Apni Purani Gadi Mujhe Do Aur Apne Paise Wapas Le Lena”. On 30.12.17 Complainant handed over the vehicle to Opposite Party No.1 but till date neither Opposite Party had changed the vehicle nor refunded his amount. On 19.04.18 Complainant lodged a complaint in police station. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No.1 in collusion with Opposite Party No.2 presented security cheque dated 06.06.18 in name of Opposite Party No.2 and sent a false and frivolous notice dated 30.06.18 to the Complainant and same was replied by the Complainant vide reply dated 20.07.18. Complainant has prayed either to pay Rs. 38,100/- or to provide new E-Rickshaw with permit. She has also prayed for Rs. 50,000/- compensation for mental pain and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite Party No.2 failed to file written statement within stipulated time. Therefore, its defence was struck off vide order dated 18.02.19.
3. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party No.3 proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 25.08.22.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

4. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement.  It is submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that Complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 09.06.17 to Bhartiye E-Rickshw Kendre and also given Rs. 8,100/- on 09.08.17 to Opposite Party No.2 which was provided the receipt from Opposite Party No.2.
5. It is further stated that Complainant not disclosed the fact that she surrender the E-Rickshaw to the Opposite Party No.2 due to non-payment of instalment by her. 

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of her case filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

8. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that she had purchased an E-Rickshaw by paying Rs. 30,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 on 09.06.17 and vehicle was handed over to her on 12.06.17. It is further stated by the Complainant that Opposite Party No.1 had obtained signature of Complainant on blank papers and cheque dated 09.06.17 on the pretext that they provide new E-Rickshaw costing of Rs. 1,18,000/- and Opposite Party No.1 will also provide subsidy from the Govt. for Rs. 30,000/-. It is also stated by the Complainant that she had paid Rs. 8,100/- to Opposite Party No.1 as installment amount of the loan taken for the subject E-Rickshaw. On 15.09.17 Complainant raised objection to Opposite Party No.1 by stating that one old E-Rickshaw was given to her in place of new E-Rickshaw for which she had made payment.
9. On 30.12.17 Opposite Party No.1 told her that you return old E-Rickshaw and Opposite Party No.1 will refund her the amount paid for the E-Rickshaw and she return old E-Rickshaw on 30.12.17, but till date Opposite Party No.1 neither refunded the amount nor given her a new E-Rickshaw. So, there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
10. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Complainant purchased E-Rickshaw from Opposite Party No.3 and not from him as document along with complaint furnished by the Complainant. She had also taken a loan for the subject E-Rickshaw from Opposite Party No.2 and she paid first EMI of Rs. 8,100/- on 09.08.17 for which Complainant also enclosed the receipt of that. It is further stated by the Opposite Party No.1 that E-Rickshaw was surrendered by the Complainant not on account of old E-Rickshaw but on account of non-payment of installment by the Complainant.
11. It is a fact that she had purchased an E-Rickshaw from Opposite Party No.3 by paying an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and for balance amount she had taken loan from Opposite Party No.2 with an EMI of Rs. 8,100/-. The Complainant did not file any evidence with regard to an old E-Rickshaw was given to her in place of new E-Rickshaw by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant also failed to produce any document with regard to handing over the E-Rickshaw to the Opposite Parties on 30.12.17 as alleged by the Complainant. As per document submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 along with his written statement the E-Rickshaw was surrendered by the Complainant on 15.02.18 on account of non-payment of loan amount.
12. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.
13. Order announced on 09.03.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President