Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/56/2019

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Manjhu Honda - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Kumar

20 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

 

                              Sh. Rajbir Singh, President.                                                            Smt.Harisha Mehta, Member

 

                                                          Complaint case No.56 of 2019.                                                                   Date of Instt.: 23.01.2019.                                                                 Date of Decision: 20.12.2023.

 

Ashok Kumar son of Mahender Singh resident of Ward No.19, Chungi Road, Geeta Mandir, Fatehabad District Fatehabad.

                                                                             ..Complainant.                                   Versus

1.M/s Manjhu Honda Sirsa Road, near M/s Chaudhary Mani Ram & Brothers G.T.Road, Fatehabad through proprietor.

 

2.Honda Motor Cycle and scooter India Private Limited, Commercial Complex-II, Sector 49-50, Golf Road, Extension Road, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122018 through its Manager/Director.

 

3.Indusind Bank Limited, Branch Fatehabad District Fatehabad through its proprietor.

                                                                   ..Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint U/S 12 of the CP Act,1986     

         

Present:                  Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for complainant.                                   Sh.Vinod Godara, Advocate for Op No.1.                                          Sh.M.L.Bhambhu, Advocate for Ops No.3.                                        OP No.2 proceeded against exparte VOD 30.04.2019.

ORDER

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

                              Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a motor cycle Honda CD 110 from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.65000/- (including the registration and insurance charges); that the complainant paid the down payment to the tune of Rs.36000/- with Op no.1 who also obtained the signatures of the complainant on some blank papers; that the Op No.1 handedover the motor cycle to the complainant and further received two advance installments of Rs.3540/- for 13.03.2017 and 13.04.2017 and also got the motor cycle financed from Op No.3; that the complainant kept on depositing the installment of Rs.1770/- with the Op No.3; that the motor cycle went out of order during the warranty period; that on the asking of the Op No.1, the complainant left his motor cycle at the workshop of Op No.1where he was given a new motor cycle with assurance that as and when the motor cycle is repaired you can enjoy new motor cycle; that thereafter the manager of Op No.1 also received Rs.10,000/- from the complainant; that around three months ago the Manager got the motor cycle parked in the workshop; that the complainant demanded his purchased motor cycle but he was disclosed that the motor cycle has already been sold; that the complainant kept on requesting the OP No.1 besides serving legal notice to do to needful but to no avail.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

2.                 On notice, OPs No.1 & 3 appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, concealment of material facts from this commission and locus standi etc. It has been further submitted that it had not get the purchased motor cycle of the complainant financed and even did not sell his motor cycle CD 100 to any other person rather the complainant himself had sold the same to someone else; that the complainant has never given Rs.10,000/- to any of its employees; that the complainant has not purchased the shine motor cycle from replying OP; that the complainant had visited the replying Op and also took test drive of shine motor cycle; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying OP. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.3 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability and concealment of material facts etc.  It has been further submitted that an amount of Rs.40641/- was financed and it was to be repaid in 24 equal monthly installments @ Rs.1767/-; that now nothing is due against the complainant and no dues certificate has already been issued, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the replying Op. Prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP No.2 did not appear before this Commission despite sending notice through registered post; therefore, it was proceeded against exparte VOD 28.02.2019.

4.                          In evidence, affidavits Annexure CW1/A, Annexure CW2/B and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C21 have been tendered whereas on behalf of the appearing Ops affidavits Annexure R1, Ex.RW3/A and  documents Annexure R3/A and Annexure R/B have been tendered.

5.                          We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file minutely.

6.                          The complainant by way of this compliant has leveled allegations against the Op No.1 that it had got his vehicle financed and further sold it to other person without his consent. The complainant has further leveled allegations against Op No.1 qua charging of Rs.10,000/- wrongly and illegally besides the allegations of fraud and forgery.  The compliant has further come with the plea that the vehicle went out of order and the Op No.1 could not get it repaired and further provided new motor cycle model shine to him.

7.                          On the other hand, the Op No.1 has specifically denied the allegations levelled against it by submitting that the motor cycle CD 100 was sold by the complainant himself and the complainant has not purchased motor cycle Shine from it and even no amount of Rs.10,000/- has ever been received from the complainant, therefore, question of any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice does not arise at.

8.                          The Op No.1 in its reply has specifically denied the allegations levelled against it, therefore, it was for the complainant to prove the version put-forth by him by leading cogent and reliable evidence. On one hand, the complainant has leveled allegations that the motor cycle went out of order and the Op No.1 did not get it repaired but he has not placed on file job card/job sheet and any other document to show that the motor cycle went out of order and was taken over by the Op No.1.The complainant has also failed to produce on file any receipt/document regarding charging/giving of Rs.10,000/- either to Op No.1 or its manager. It was for the complainant to counter the reply/version of the OP raised in the written statement qua not selling of motor cycle shine to it by the Op No.1 but again he did not lead any cogent and reliable evidence. It is settled principle of law that mere assertion without any credible evidence has no value in the eyes of law, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at the conclusion that the present complaint is baseless and deserves dismissal.

9.                          In view of the above mentioned reasons/discussions, we do not find any merits in this complaint, as the complainants have not been able to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed.  In the given facts and circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, free of cost, as per rules, and thereafter, the case file be consigned to record room, as per rules, after necessary compliance. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein.

          

Announced in open Commission.                                                            Dated: 20.12.2023

 

 

                                                                                                        

                             (Harisha Mehta)            (Rajbir Singh)                                                            Member                             President