BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.416 of 2016

Date of Instt. 23.09.2016

Date of Decision: 08.08.2018

Krishan Dev S/o Sh. Shankar Dass R/o New Hari Nagar, Near Delhi Public School, Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd. Pune through its Managing Director, Pune.

2. M/s Okara Agro Industries Ltd. Corporate Office 803, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110003.

3. M/s Dada Motors through its Prop./Managing Director, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. G. S. Raghav Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

None for OP No.1 & 3.

OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein stated that the complainant has purchased a scooter make Bajaj, Chetak Chassis No.06880F84392, Engine No.35P80F81033, vide Invoice No.6936 dated 31.12.1997, for Rs.23,010/-. At the time of sale and purchase in the year 1997 and also its related period, the Bajaj Auto Ltd. as well as its Authorized Dealer launched a scheme to promote the sale of the company and their agencies through publication in the newspaper Punjab Kesari at that time. In terms of the aforesaid scheme, a post dated cheque bearing No.276241 for Rs.25,000/- to be encashed on 27.12.2015 at P. N. B. Jangpura, New Delhi was issued by the authorized partners/dealers of the Bajaj Chetak in the name of the complainant through respondent/opponents being the authorized agents. That M/s Dada Motors, who are the authorized dealer of the company assured the complainant that the cheque issued by M/s Okara Agro Industries Ltd. on behalf of the company as well as on their behalf will be encashed at the time of presentation of the cheque in the PNB Jangpura, New Delhi. On the completion of the period of the cheque as per the policy and scheme of the company and their authorized dealer when the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque to the PNB, Jangpura, New Delhi through his bankers the aforesaid cheque has been returned by their banker that there is no account in their bank. In fact the aforesaid cheque has been issued with malafide intention to cheat the complainant as the same has been dishonoured by the bank concern.

2. That the complainant approached all the respondents/opponents repeatedly to redress his grievances, but all in vain. The respondent/opponent No.3 has intentionally concealed and suppressed the matter and not cooperating with the complainant for the payment of Rs.25,000/-, which has been due as on 25.12.2015. In fact they are fully liable and responsible to pay the said payment as per their commitments and assurance given to the complainant as per the policy and scheme launched by them. It is a legal lapse on the part of all respondents as they have been prolonging the matter on one or the other pretext and harassing the complainant unnecessarily and not making the payment in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as per the policy/scheme introduced and launched by the respondents/opponents. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 09.03.2016 through his counsel, but no reply has been received and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and respondents be directed to release the amount in the sum of Rs.25,000/- was to be encashed on the basis of cheque issued by the authorized partners/dealers of Bajaj Chetak through M/s Dada Motors and its proprietor/Managing Director, B. M. C. Chowk, Jalandhar alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accrual i.e. 27.12.2015 till its realization and further complainant is entitled for compensation for harassment and mental agony, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 and 3 appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that at the very outset, the answering respondent denies all the averments and conditions raised in the complaint and further alleged that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as such. The alleged transaction relates to the dishonouring of the cheque, which falls within the ambit of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 from which the complainant has remedy to file a criminal complaint against the drawer. It is further alleged that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It is further alleged that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and even the complaint is baseless and it is abuse of the process of law, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. On merits, the averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C11 and then closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1&3/A along with documents Ex.OP1&3/1 i.e. Copy of Authority Letter and then closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. In nutshell, in this complaint, the case set up by the complainant is only that he purchased Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing Chassis No.06880F84392, Engine No.35P80F81033, vide Invoice No.6936 dated 31.12.1997 for Rs.23,010/- from the authorized dealer, at that time, an allurement was given by the Bajaj Auto Limited, if anybody purchased Bajaj Scooter from near by Bajaj Dealer, Punjab, Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh, then he will get a cheque of the same amount of the price of the Scooter payable after 18 years and the said allurement given by the OP No.1 in the newspaper and photostat copy of the newspaper is available on the file Ex.C-9 and copy of the Invoice is Ex.C-1, which shows that the said scooter was purchased by the complainant in the year 1997 from authorized dealer i.e. Dada Motors, Jalandhar and cheque for an amount of Rs.25,000/- was given to the complainant at that time by the company and photostat copy of the same is available on the file Ex.C-4, but when the said cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment, the same was not encashed on the ground that there is no account in the said bank of the OP and as such, the instant complaint filed by the complainant for the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and also demand the amount of the cheque Rs.25,000/- along with the compensation as well as litigation expenses and interest thereon.

8. For the best known reason, the OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 and 3 filed written reply and wherein took numerous preliminary objections, but on merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the scooter from the OP No.3, who is authorized dealer of the OP No.1/Manufacturer, though the factum in regard to issuing of cheque of the same price of the scooter at the time of purchase of the scooter by the company to the purchaser, has been denied by the OP No.1 and 3 rather contended that the said facts is to be proved by the complainant itself and sought dismissal of the complaint of the complainant.

9. We find from the above facts that the claim of the complainant as alleged in the complaint is not directly denied by OP No.1 and 3 rather they admitted that the complainant purchased the scooter in the year 1997 and to this extent, there is no need to discuss any document, so, accordingly we have to come directly on the allurement given by the complainant in the newspaper whether the same was in existence at that time or not, for that purpose, the complainant has brought on the file photostat copy of the newspaper Ex.C-9, if we glance the said newspaper, then we can say without any hesitation that the said allurement was obviously given by the OP No.1 for increasing the sale of the scooters and in lieu of that allurement, a cheque Ex.C-4 was issued by the OP No.1 in favour of the complainant payable after 18 years i.e. in the year 2015, but the said cheque has been dishonoured for want of account of the OP No.1 in the alleged bank. So, it is a clear cut deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, therefore, complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from 27.12.2015, till realization of the said amount and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

08.08.2018 Member President