Delhi

North East

CC/99/2021

Mr. Santosh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Aman Motors - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2024

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. 99/21

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mr. Santosh Kumar, S/o ShriCharan Singh, R/o A 70, Gali No. 10, Part 3, Sonia Vihar, Delhi 110094		Complainant
		Versus
		M/s Aman Motors, Dealer Code 64517 P 17, 2ndPusta Sonia Vihar, Delhi 94   Also at: Pusta 3.1/2, Kartar Nagar, Delhi 110053		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:		09.08.2024 09.02.2024 10.04.2024

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 07.02.2019 Complainant had purchased a motor vehicle Passion Pro 110 from the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 64,000/-. Complainant stated that he purchased the said vehicle for gifting to her brother-in-law namely Priya Pratap Singh in the marriage of his sister. Complainant stated that despite receiving all the payments, the Opposite Partly had failed to provide the registration certificate of the said vehicle in the name of the Complainant and in the name of his brother in law till today. Complainant stated Opposite Party had denied for issuing the RC and number plate and relevant documents to the Complainant till today. Complainant stated that about a period of 02 years has lapsed but Opposite Party had not made any positive response. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 64,000/- i.e. the cost of the vehicle along with interest @ 24 % from the date of purchase. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is admitted that the complaint is false. It is stated that the Opposite Party never sold the alleged vehicle to the Complainant at any point of time. It is stated that employees of the Opposite Party namely Priyank, Afroz, Yasin, Hamid and their associates had stolen the receipt book of the Opposite Party bearing serial no. from 32551 to 32600. They also stolen some original documents like delivery challan service books etc. The alleged receipt no. 32551 filed by the Complainant has been forged and fabricated by the Complainant in connivance with the staff of the Opposite Party. It is stated that the Opposite Party has also lodged FIR in this regard in police station Sonia Vihar, Delhi vide Fir No. 284/2019. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Partyand has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. The Complainant also filed affidavit of his brother-in-law namely Priya Pratap Singh in support of his complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Jai Shankar Sharma, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased one bike from the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 64,000/-  and his case is that despite purchasing the said bike from the Opposite Party the Opposite Party did not give him the registration certificate of the vehicle. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased the said bike in cash vide receipt no. 32551. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that it had never sold any bike to the Complainant at any point of time. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the said receipt no. 32551 along with other receipts and documents were stolen by its staff and the same has been forged by the Complainant in connivance with its staff. It is the case of the Opposite Party that one FIR has been registered in police station Sonia Vihar, Delhi in this regard.
7. The question which is to be decided that whether the Complainant has purchased the bike from the Opposite Party. The Complainant has not produced the invoice regarding the purchase of the bike from the Opposite Party. He has simply filed copy of the receipt bearing no. 32551. The perusal of the said receipt shows that the date has not been mentioned and chassis no. of the motor cycle has not been mentioned in the said receipt. Further, which is most important is that the said receipt does not shows that any bike was sold to Priya Pratap Singh. The relevant part of the said receipt is reproduced as under:

“No. 32551                                                                                                                         Dated:………………….

Received with thanks from M/s Mr. Miss. Priya Pratap Singh

S/o Birendra Singh, R/o B-18, Street No. 1, Near Karkardooma Station, Arya Nagar E/D, DL-92,

the sum of Rupees Sixty four thousand only

by cash/cheque*/Draft No. Credit Card Cash

Chassis No., Model & Colour P.Pro 110 drum Silver

Challan No……………………………………………………….. D. Date………………………..

 

Rs. 64,000/-

                                                                                                                 For AMAN MOTOR

Price applicable at the time of Delivery

*Subject to Realisation of Cheque.

E&O.E                                                                                                                                            Authorised Signatory”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

8. This receipt does not show that any bike was sold to the Complainant or his brother-in-law namely Priya Pratap Singh nor there is any date when the said receipt was issued to the Complainant. Further, the grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party did not issue the registration certificate of the bike to the Complainant. The Complainant has failed to lead any cogent evidence that any registration charges etc. were paid to the Opposite Party. From the perusal of the evidence lead by the Complainant, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to show that he had ever purchased any bike from the Opposite Party or that he had paid any registration charges to the Opposite Party.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
10. Order announced on 10.04.2024.

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