Order No. 2

Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Perused. Considered. Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant.

The facts of the case is that the complainant purchased one motor vehicle from the opposite party at a consideration price of Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees one lakh and eighty four thousand) only. Complanant paid Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand) through RTGS and the rest Rs.64,000/- (Rupees sixty four thousand) only by cash to the opposite party.

It is the case of the complainant that opposite party no.1 promised and assured to affect the transfer of the ownership of the said vehicle from Khaitan Winding Wire (P) Ltd. to the name of the complainant. Though the complainant paid entire amount of consideration of the vehicle including necessary charges for change of ownership on 08/09/2021, which the opposite party has acknowledged but till date opposite party has not affected change of the name of the owner of the vehicle.

Hence this case.

On meticulous scrutiny of the record we find it is not the case of the complainant that he is not in possession of the vehicle in question. The complainant alleged that in spite of promise to change the name of the ownership of the vehicle in necessary documents for which opposite party accepted necessary charges, till date opposite party had not done anything as promised which is tantamount to deficiency in service.

We do not find any prima facie document to show that the opposite party has promised to affect the change of the name of the owner of the vehicle in question. Moreover, neither amount of necessary charges for changing the name of the ownership of the vehicle is mentioned in the complaint nor any document has been submitted by the complainant to prima facie show that he had paid any consideration to opposite party for the alleged service.

We are of the opinion that the complainant has prima facie failed to show that he has availed any service from the opposite party on payment of consideration in terms of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.

Therefore, the complaint lacks merit and this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case.

Hence, it is

                                                                        O R D E R E D

that the complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.