Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/260

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Chauhan Enterprises(Regd.) - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.Sabharwal Adv.

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 260 of 20.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   20.01.2017 

 

Gurmeet Singh aged 27 years son of S.Santokh Singh, resident of V.P.O.Partap Singh Wala, Hambran Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

M/s. Chauhan Enterprises (Regd.) also known as M/s.Chauhan Teleshop, Near Sonu Complex, Shakti Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner.

…Opposite party

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBMER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :          Sh.Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, Advocate

For OP                           :          Sh.Amandeep Singh Grewal, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Father of the complainant purchased an old three wheeler of make Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, bearing registration No.PB-10-CL-6518 from OP. This vehicle was got financed against monthly installments of Rs.6300/- each. Complainant has been paying the monthly installments regularly to the OP and most of the amount has already been paid. At the time of sale of the vehicle, OP assured the complainant that the vehicle will be transferred in his name after repayment of the installments by the complainant. On this assurances and representations of OP, vehicle was purchased by the complainant. After payment of most of the installments, complainant approached OP for transfer of the vehicle in his name. For this purpose, the complainant traced the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle as per requirements of getting the vehicle transferred in his name. On tracing of the same, the complainant came to know that there was a difference between the original         engine number and chassis number, than the one mentioned in R.C. When the complainant confronted about this fact to OP, then they procrastinated the matter.       It is claimed that when the complainant paid the installments, then OP virtually refused to listen the genuine grievance of the complainant. Officials of OP openly proclaimed that they simply concerned about the sale of the vehicle and it is not there headache to manage to get the registration of the vehicle done in the name of the complainant. That is alleged to be an act of gravest deficiency in service on the part of OP. So, prayer made for directing OP to do the needful for correction of engine number and chassis number in the registration certificate of the vehicle and get the same transferred in the name of the complainant. Compensation for mental harassment, pain, agony and suffering of Rs.70,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11000/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint in the present form is not maintainable; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. It is claimed that the above said vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10-CL-6518 was purchased from the company and engine and registration number of the vehicle was issued by the company to the complainant. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, complaint against OP is not maintainable. Admittedly, father of the complainant purchased old vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10-CL-6518 from Op. The vehicle purchased by the father of the complainant will be transferred in name of father of complainant after full loan amount is paid. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C23 and then his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Manoj Chauhan, Proprietor of OP and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 has been produced to show that the complainant has paid the installments of loan contracted from Op. Copy of loan agreement or the schedule of loan installments not produced to establish that actual availed loan amount has been paid fully by the complainant to OP. During course of arguments, counsel for the complainant admitted that still two loan installments remains to be paid and the complainant is ready and willing to pay those installments to OP for getting the vehicle transferred in his name. Originally the loan was contracted by the father of the complainant is a fact admitted by the parties, but death of father of the complainant took place on 13.02.2015 is a fact disclosed by contents of copy of death certificate Ex.C21. So, long as the full loan amount is not paid, the vehicle in question will remain under hypothecation of OP because endorsement of such hypothecation in the name of OP exist in copy of registration certificate Ex.C20 itself. How much loan amount remains to be paid by the complainant to OP qua that counsel for the complainant unable to disclose the exact amount and as such offer of payment cannot be termed as genuine one. As the vehicle in question is under hypothecation of OP, owing to its being financed by OP and as such, the said hypothecation entry cannot be ordered to be changed in Ex.C20 till the payment of the entire loan amount made by the complainant. Being so, complaint for transfer of the vehicle in the name of complainant is pre-mature and the same merits dismissal on this ground itself.

7.           It is the case of complainant that engine number and chassis number traced by the complainant of the vehicle in question through Ex.C22 is different than that of the engine number and chassis number mentioned in the registration certificate Ex.C20. If the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle in question as traced by the complainant through Ex.C22 is different than that of the engine number and chassis number of vehicle, whose RC Ex.C20 got prepared, then the same reflects as if some forgery or cheating may have done in getting RC Ex.C20 prepared. As and when element of forgery and cheating involved, then Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to go into that question because the said question can be adjudicated on appraisal of elaborate evidence adduced by both the parties. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in case District Transport Officer vs. Amita Goyal-2015(4)CLT-349(N.C.), which provides that when issue involved in Consumer complaint relates to forgery, fraud or cheating etc., then matter requires to be adjudicated by the Civil Court or Criminal Court because the said controversy can be resolved after adduction of  elaborate evidence. Proceedings before the Consumer Forum are summary in nature and question of tampering and forgery cannot be gone into in these summary proceedings. Being so, deficiency in service on the part of OP cannot be at all attributed, particularly when complainant unable to prove as to how the wrong engine number and chassis number came into incorporated in the registration certificate Ex.C20, in which, ownership is in the name of Sh.Jaspal Singh s/o Ajit Singh. That Jaspal Singh s/o Ajit Singh is not made as a party in this case and nor the same produced as a witness. Rather, if we go through the contents of Ex.C20, then it discloses as if the owner Sh.Jaspal Singh s/o Ajit Singh hypothecated the vehicle in question in favour of OP. Being so, right for getting the hypothecation agreement rescinded or cancelled remains of Jaspal Singh, the registered owner and not of the complainant, particularly, when the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to establish that this vehicle in question ever transferred in the name of his father Sh.Santokh Singh for and on whose behalf the alleged loan installments paid through Ex.C1 to Ex.C19.So,complainant seeks relief without disclosing the true facts as to how and under what circumstances, his father Sh.Santokh Singh came in   picture with respect to the ownership right of vehicle in question. In view of non production of clear cut proof qua entitlement of the complainant to get the vehicle transferred in his name, complaint deserves to be dismissed.

8.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                                                Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                              Dated:20.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.