Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/136/2024

YOGESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s A TO Z CAR POINT - Opp.Party(s)

ANISH BABBAR

03 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/136/2024
Date of Institution	:	17/02/2024
Date of Decision	:	03/09/2024

 

Yogesh Kumar s/o Sh. Lalit Mohan, aged 30 years, r/o H.No.2367-A, Sector 104/C, Pearl City, VPO Raipur Kalan, Mohali.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s A to Z Car Point through its authorized signatory Sh.Karan Tondon, # Plot No.433, JLPL, Sector-82, Mohali.
2. Sh. Karan Tondon, authorized signatory, M/s A to Z Car Point, # Plot No.433, JLPL, Sector-82, Mohali.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anish Babbar, Advocate for complainant (thr.VC)
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Yogesh Kumar, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that on 12.7.2023, complainant had approached the OPs for purchase of a second hand car and after giving options for various cars, complainant finally chose to purchase a Hyundai Verna Model 2011 car bearing registration No.DL-13CB-6066 (hereinafter referred to as “subject car”) for total sale consideration of ₹2,80,000/-.  After settling the terms, complainant promptly performed his obligation and paid advance of ₹40,000/- as the OPs had to procure the original documents from the owner of the subject car residing at Delhi and also to obtain NOC from the Registration and Licensing Authority, Delhi. Thereafter the complainant had also made further payments and total amount of ₹1,90,000/- was acknowledged by the OPs from the complainant vide receipt (Annexure C-1). The balance amount of ₹90,000/- was also paid by the complainant to the OPs and in this manner entire amount of ₹2,80,000/- was acknowledged by the OPs vide receipt (Annexure C-2).  In addition to that, complainant had also paid an amount of ₹12,000/- for the insurance of the subject car, out of which OPs had only paid ₹9,319/- as premium to the insurance company.  However, later on it was found that a number of challans (Annexure C-4 colly.) were pending against the subject car before the authority and the OPs were not in a position to obtain the NOC unless the same were cleared.  In this manner, OPs failed to provide NOC from the authority which was required for the transfer of the registration certificate in the name of the complainant at Chandigarh and the OPs could not get the said car transferred in the name of the complainant despite of having received the entire amount of ₹2,80,000/- from the complainant.  Not only this, complainant also got the subject car repaired and had spent an amount of ₹50,000/- on the same.  When the OPs failed to get the said car transferred in the name of the complainant, he had no other option but to return the subject car to the OPs and when the complainant approached the OPs for the return of the subject car and refund of the sale consideration, OPs again had played colourful business tactics with the complainant and had asked him to sell the subject car to the OPs for total sum of ₹2,50,000/-.  On this, delivery note/letter (Annexure C-5) was issued by OPs on 26.9.2023 and the OPs had transferred an amount of ₹50,000/- in the account of the complainant and had also issued cheque (Annexure C-7) dated 30.11.2023 for sum of ₹1,25,000/- towards part payment and in discharge of legally enforceable liability. Thereafter when the complainant presented the said cheque, same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the OPs and the said fact was conveyed to the complainant by the bank vide memo dated 8.12.2023 (Annexure C-8). Later on, OPs had assured the complainant that the matter would be settled within 10 days, but, nothing has been done by them.  The complainant issued legal notice (Annexure C-9) to the OPs under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and when nothing was done by the OPs, he was compelled to file a complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.  In this manner, OPs have deprived the complainant of his hard earned money by not rendering the services as agreed upon by them at the time of sale of the subject car and even at the time of repurchase of the same from the complainant and the said acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, hence they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 8.5.2024.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered/proved evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.

 

1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that he had purchased the subject car from the OPs for total sale consideration of ₹2,80,000/-, as is also evident from the receipts Annexure C-1 and C-2 and the same was found to be challaned by the authorities several times, as is also evident from Annexure C-4 and the OPs could not obtain NOC of the subject car nor could get the same transferred in the name of the complainant and on this OPs had agreed to repurchase the subject car from the complainant for total sale consideration of ₹2,50,000/-, out of which they had paid only an amount of ₹50,000/- and the cheque to the tune of ₹1,25,000/- on account of partial payment issued by the OPs in favour of the complainant was also dishonoured and the complainant had also spent an amount of ₹50,000/- for the repair of the subject car, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint.
2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 and C-2 clearly indicates that the OPs had sold the subject car to the complainant for total sale consideration of ₹2,80,000/-.  It is further an admitted case of the complainant that the OPs had agreed to repurchase the subject car for total sale consideration of ₹2,50,000/-, out of which they had only transferred an amount of ₹50,000/- in the account of the complainant.
3. Perusal of Annexure C-4 (Colly.) clearly indicates that the subject car was challaned on different dates and the challans have been shown to be pending, making it clear that the OPs were not in a position to get the NOC from the owner unless the said challans were cleared by the authorities.
4. Copy of delivery letter (Annexure C-5) indicates that the OPs had agreed to repurchase the subject car from the complainant.  As per the case of the complainant, he had already received an amount of ₹50,000/- from the OPs, but, the cheque to the tune of ₹1,25,000/-, issued by the OPs in his favour, was dishonoured by the banker of the OPs on the ground of insufficient funds in the account of the OPs, as is also evident from the copy of cheque (Annexure C-7) and bank memo (Annexure C-8).  Annexure C-9 is copy of legal notice issued by the complainant before filing complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Magistrate at Chandigarh.
5. From the perusal of the entire evidence led by the complainant, as discussed above, which is unrebutted by the OPs, one thing is clear that the OPs had firstly sold the subject car to the complainant for total sale consideration of ₹2,80,000/- and later when they failed to obtain the NOC from the authorities as well as get the subject car transferred in the name of the complainant, they again repurchased the same from the complainant for total sale consideration of ₹2,50,000/-. 
6. Moreover, it further stands proved on record that the OPs have not paid the entire sale consideration of ₹2,50,000/- to the complainant for which they had agreed to purchase the same from the complainant as OPs had only transferred an amount of ₹50,000/- and the cheque issued for the amount of ₹1,25,000/-, being partial payment, has also been dishonoured, as a result of which complainant was compelled to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the criminal court against the OPs. 
7. Not only this, as the OPs have not paid or issued cheque with respect to the remaining amount of ₹75,000/-, it is clear that even as per the terms settled through delivery letter (Annexure C-5), OPs have not paid the amount of ₹2.00 lacs to the complainant making further clear that the OPs have firstly failed to render services after the sale of the subject car to the complainant by obtaining the NOC for getting the subject car transferred in the name of the complainant and further could not perform their part even after repurchasing the subject car from the complainant by making the balance payment of ₹2.00 lacs to him and the aforesaid acts certainly amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the said amount to the complainant.
8. In addition to above, as it has also come on record that the complainant had spent an amount of ₹30,000/- for the repair of the subject car, as is also evident from details of amount (Annexure C-6 Colly.), he is also entitled to the said amount from the OPs.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has successfully proved the cause of action set up in the consumer complaint and the same deserves to succeed, especially when the entire evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted.

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹2,30,000/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) w.e.f. 26.9.2023 (i.e. the date of delivery note) onwards.  The OPs shall, however, take possession of the subject car from the complainant at their own risk and cost.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/09/2024	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/-
	[Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/-
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member