BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.  92 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          02.03.2015

                                                        Date of Decision:            27.11.2015

Ram Sanjivan Yadav son of Ram Sumer Yadav, resident of House No.79, Village Dadu Majra, Sector 38, Chandigarh.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     M/s. Bhambra Motors, C-55, Industrial Area, Phase-VI, SAS Nagar Mohali through its Partner/owner/authorised representative.

2.     Shri J.P. Gautam, House No.3263, Near Durga Shiv Mandir, Maloya Colony, UT, Chandigarh.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Varinder Arora, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri N.S. Jagdeva, counsel for OP No.1.

                OP No.2 Ex-parte.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’)

 (a)   refund the initial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest or in the alternative to provide him the requisite documents for registration of three wheeler alongwith other fines and penalties for delayed registration.

(b)    pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and unfair trade practice.

(c)    pay him Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges.

                The case of the complainant is that he approached OP No.1, who is authorized dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd. for purchase of three wheeler, where OP No.2, who was employee of OP No.1, met him.  OP No.2 informed him about the sale price of the vehicle and also informed that OP No.1 also provides loan facility to the customers.  On the request of the complainant for loan, the OPs directed him to arrange initial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to make down payment for purchase of the three wheeler.  It was also conveyed by the OPs that they can arrange loan from Govt. bank which has less rate of interest on the installments.  Accordingly, the complainant arranged Rs.1,00,000/- and paid to OP No.1 in the presence of OP No.2 but no receipt was issued to him on the ground that this amount will reflect in the loan to be sanctioned by the bank.  The three wheeler was delivered to the complainant on 15.04.2014 alongwith valid insurance cover note issued by ICICI Lombard and temporary registration certificate.  The loan process file of the complainant was forwarded to Canara Bank Chandigarh after 15-20 days of delivery of the vehicle to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant is requesting the OPs to get signed the requisite documents from the concerned authority for getting permanent number of the vehicle. In the absence of permanent registration number the complainant is unable to ply the vehicle for earning his livelihood.  The complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the OPs by borrowing from his friends.  The complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/- to OP No.2 but from the record it revealed that OP No.2 had only deposited Rs.80,000/- with OP No.1. Upon agitating the matter, OP No.2 refunded Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             OP  No.1 in its written statement has pleaded that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention to harass OP No.1. The complainant cannot get benefits of his own wrongs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and there are complex questions of law and facts in the complaint.  On merits, it is denied that OP No.2 was its employee.  OP No.2 came alongwith complainant to buy Bajaj Auto and OP No.1 never provides loan facility to anyone. OP No.1 never assured the complainant to get his vehicle financed from recognized bank.  OP No.1 has also denied receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- but it has received only Rs.80,000/- against the total price of Rs.1,84,000/- of the three wheeler.  Proper receipt was issued to the complainant.  Regarding the remaining payment, the complainant assured that his loan case is under process with Canara Bank and he would make the balance payment of Rs.1,04,000/- within 2-3 days and will then receive the documents. The complainant pressurized OP No.1 to get delivery on 15.04.2014 being auspicious day for him. A sum of Rs.1,04,000/- plus interest Rs.27,040/- total Rs.1,31,040/-  is still due from the complainant.  The complainant never approached OP No.1 after taking delivery of the vehicle. Rather OP No.1 requested the complainant time and again to get his vehicle financed and make balance payment and receive the documents.  It was the duty of the complainant to get his loan sanctioned from the bank. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

3.             OP No.2 appeared in person on 24.07.2015 and sought time to file reply on 10.08.2015.  On 10.08.2015 reply by OP No.2 was again not filed and the complaint was adjourned to 19.08.2015. On 19.08.2015 OP No.2 did not appear on and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.

4.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to C-8.

5.             Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Bhambra, its Prop. Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/3.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by them.

7.             The purchase of Bajaj Three wheeler by the complainant from OP No.2 on 15.04.2014 is not disputed. As per the complainant against the agreed price of Rs.1,84,000/- as per invoice Ex.OP-1 the complainant has made down payment of Rs.1.00 lac to OP No.2 who claimed to be the representative/employee of OP No.1.  OP No.2 instead of depositing whole amount of Rs.1.00 lac with OP No.1 has deposited Rs.80,000/- as part sale consideration paid by the complainant. OP No.1 has acknowledged the payment of Rs.80,000/-. For balance payment it was agreed that the OP No.1 will help the complainant in arranging loan from nationalized bank as their rate of interest is quite lower and that will benefit the complainant. Believing the assurance of the OPs the complainant submitted the requisite documents to the OPs for arranging loan from Canara Bank. Under the belief that the loan will be sanctioned soon, OP No.1 has made the delivery of three wheeler to the complainant on 15.04.2014 alongwith copy of the sale letter, insurance cover and temporary registration to the complainant. The loan amount for balance consideration some how could not be got sanctioned and the complainant has approached the OPs for providing necessary documents for getting permanent registration certificate for the vehicle from the competent authority. OP No.1 has failed to provide necessary documents for permanent registration of the vehicle and the OP No.2 has failed to pay back Rs.20,000/- to the complainant which received from the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

8.             OP No.1 in its written reply has admitted having sold the vehicle to the complainant but denied having given any assurance for arranging loan for the complainant for making balance sale consideration. Believing that the complainant will make arrangements for balance consideration soon, the OP No.1 has in good faith delivered the vehicle alongwith sale certificate, temporary registration number and insurance cover. Further the OP No.1 has admitted having received Rs.80,000/- as part consideration of the total agreed sale price.  Since the complainant has not paid back the balance amount, therefore, OP No.1 has not provided any further document to the complainant for permanent registration of the vehicle with the competent authority under Motor Vehicles Act. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, OP No.1 has sought dismissal of the complaint as no cause of action lies against it due to the wrong acts of the complainant.

9.             OP No.2 though appeared at the initial stage of proceedings but chose not to file any response and join the proceedings further.

10.           The two issues emerge from the present complaint i.e. non availability of financial assistance to the complainant despite assurance given by OP No.1  and non supply of documents for permanent registration of the vehicle in question by OP No.1 and illegal retention of Rs.20,000/- of the complainant by OP No.2.

11.           Qua OP No.2 the grievance of the complainant is that he has paid Rs.1.00 lac to him for deposit with OP No.1 as part sale consideration whereas OP No.2 has deposited Rs.80,000/- and retained Rs.20,000/- with him without any rhyme and reason. When raised an issuance with OP No.2 by the complainant,  OP No.2 agreed to return the Rs.20,000/- and in fact has issued cheque No.103793 dated 20.10.2014 Ex.C-8 . The said cheque upon presentation has been returned by the banker with the remarks ‘signature differ’ as is evident from inward return clearing items, Central Bank of India dated 02.12.2014 exhibited alongwith Ex.C-8. Thus, it is ample evidence that OP No.2 has admitted his fault of less deposit of Rs.20,000/- with OP No.1 and against that admission has made part payment to the complainant vide Ex.C-2. Thus, the grievance of the complainant against OP No.2 is fully proved and the act of OP No.2 for illegally retaining the amount of Rs.20,000/- of the complainant is an act of unfair trade practice.

12.           Qua OP No.1 in order to prove the part payment of the agreed consideration for purchase of three wheeler in question, the complainant has submitted the statement of accounts Ex.C-3 to C-7 showing the funds arranged by him from various friends for making payment of Rs.1.00 lac to OP No.2 as part consideration to be paid to OP No.1. OP No.1 has admitted having received Rs.80,000/- from the complainant against the invoice dated 15.04.2014. Further the complainant has admitted having received the sale certificate, temporary registration number and copy of the insurance cover as is evident from Ex.C-2/A i.e. DDR No.16 dated 05.10.2014 lodged by the complainant with Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh showing the missing report of these documents on 05.10.2014 which goes to show that the complainant was in possession of sale letter, insurance and temporary registration from 15.04.2014 to 05.10.2014. The OP No.1 has also admitted having provided these documents to the complainant.

13.            The disputed question remained in the complaint is that the OP No.1 has failed to provide documents for permanent registration of the vehicle and also has not helped the complainant to get loan.  So far assurance to the complainant by the OP No.1 for arranging loan for the balance payment, is concerned, we do not find any documentary evidence in this regard from either of the parties. Even if we believe the affidavit of the complainant in this regard the complainant has failed to show the documents of loan process file having been forwarded to Canara Bank Sector 30, Chandigarh. The passbook relied upon by the complainant Ex.C-3 is silent in this regard.  Therefore, bald assertion of making arrangement for loan as allegedly promised by OP No.1 is of no help to the complainant to prove his grievance against OP No.1.

14.           So far non providing of documents for permanent registration is concerned, the complainant has failed to show the balance payment due against the agreed sale consideration. Further OP No.1 has also failed to show any demand notice for recovery of the balance amount. The retention  and non supply of documents for permanent registration of the vehicle, being part of after sale service of the sale of three wheeler  in question is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1. Without permanent registration of the vehicle, the complainant is subjected to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and is unable to make use of the vehicle in question. Non payment of the balance amount by the complainant in no manner entitles the OP No.1 to withhold the documents relating to permanent registration of the vehicle.  In fact it was incumbent upon OP No.1 to provide all the necessary documents for permanent registration of the vehicle even if some payment was due to be recovery from the complainant. The OP no.1 is otherwise well within his right to recover the balance amount due from the complainant after following the due process.

15.           On the basis of pleadings and appreciation of evidence of the parties, we are of the considered opinion that both OP Nos.1 and 2 have indulged into unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and due to their acts of omission and commission, the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as mental agony and harassment. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

16.           In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:

(a)    OP No.1 to provide all required documents under Motor Vehicles Act for permanent registration of the vehicle in question to the complainant within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(b)    OP No.1 to pay against due receipt a sum of additional penalty  amount which the complainant will have to pay to the registering authorities for late registration of the vehicle.

(c)    OP No.1 to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

(d)    OP No.2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 15.04.2014 (i.e. the date of receipt of part payment by OP No.2) till realization.

(e)    OP No.2 to further pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of directions (b) to (e) of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

November 27, 2015.     

                                   (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

                        Member