Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/142/2013

Rabia W/o. Mohd.Suleman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Metro Motors Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.L.Chaneti

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 142 of 2013

                                                                                          Date of institution: 20.02.2013   

                                                                                          Date of decision: 29.11.2016.

 

1. Rabia aged about 46 years, wife of Mohd. Suleman.
2. Mohd. Mustkin aged about 21 years, son of Mohd. Suleman, both residents of House No.1278 Ganga Nagar Colony (Banni) Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                

                                                 …Complainants.

                                               Versus

1. M/s Metro Motors, Pvt. Limited, Plot No.E 68 Workshop Road, Adjoining Maya Palace, Yamuna Nagar, Through its Branch Manger Shri Abhiraj Rana.
2. Metro Motors Pvt. Limited Plot No. E 68 Workshop Road, Adjoining Maya Palace, Yamuna Nagar, through its Sales Manager Mr. Manoj Kumar.
3. Metro Motors Pvt. Limited, 10th Milestone, GT Road, VPO Mohra, Ambala 13304, through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                                                                   .

                                                                                                                                                          ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Shri R.L. Chaneti, Advocate for complainants

                        Shri Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 3.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainants are that OP No.1 and 2 allured the complainants as well as to other persons of their locality for purchasing vehicle ACE X (Chhota Hanthi) manufactured by TATA Motors with the assurance that the said vehicle will be delivered to them on 100% loan basis and the complainants have to pay a sum of Rs.5150/- to the company. The OP No.2 collected the amount of Rs.6000/ -from the complainants from their house and issued receipts for Rs.5150/- bearing quotation No.M20492 dated 15.11.2012. He told the complainants that the value of the said vehicle is Rs.3,35,000/-. But on Diwali festival the company is giving discount of Rs.10,000/- on each vehicle. Complainants No.1 handed-over the all documents i.e. Ration Card, Voter Card, PAN Card etc.  to the OP No.2. Thereafter, the OP No.2 told the complainants No.1 to open an account with any Nationalized Bank and give 8 cheques to the company. After that, Complainants No.1 opened her account with the Bank of India, New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar and handed over 8 blank signed cheques to the OP No.1 and 2 bearing cheques No.101401 to 101408 from her saving Account bearing No.672510110005140 on dated 10.11.2012. The OP No.1 and 2 prepared the documents for loan and gave the same to the Financer i.e. OP No.3 for approval. The OP No.1 and 2 called the complainants time and again, but did not hand over the said vehicle due to reasons best know to them. After a week, the OP No.1 and 2 called the complainants No.2 and told that they are not able to give the delivery of the said vehicle in the name of the complainants No.1 being lady. But these facts were not narrated by the OP No.1 and 2 to the complainants at the time of booking of the vehicle or collection of funds from them. After that complainants No.2 opened his account with the Bank of India, New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar and handed-over all the documents to the OP No.1 and 2 who allegedly sent the same to the Financer. On 05.12.2012, the father of the complainants No.2 and husband of the complainants No.1 approached the OP No.1 and 2 personally who told that they are not able to deliver the vehicle on 100% loan basis  and if the complainants are interested in the said vehicle, the complainants will have to deposit 10% amount plus expenses which comes approximately Rs.38,000/- which is unfair trade practice on the part of the of all the OPs. The complainants have booked the said vehicle only for 100% loan basis and for this purpose the complainants made the advance payment of Rs.6,000/-, but the OPs have wasted near about a month and due to that the complainants have suffered a lot of mental agony and harassment. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. A legal registered notice was also sent on 17.12.2012 but no reply has been received from them. However, reply dated 29.12.2012 was received from the OP No.3 who sent a cheque bearing No.004265 dated 27.12.2012 for Rs.5150/- on account of refund of advance along with interest in the name of Smt. Rabia Wife of Mohd. Suleman. Lastly, it has been mentioned that above noted acts of the OPs constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OP No.1 to 3 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as present complaint is totally false and frivolous; complaint is bad for want of territorial jurisdiction, because the entire transaction had taken place at Metro Motors Private Limited, Mohra, Tehsil & District Ambala and OP No.1 and 2 has nothing to do with the said case or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and on merit it has been denied that the complainants were allured by the OPs because everything was made clear to both the complainants. Further, it has been also denied that blank signed cheques were ever delivered to the OP No.1 and 2.  However, it is admitted that documents were to be processed by the OP No.3. Further, it is also admitted that a legal notice dated 11.12.2012 instead the dated 17.12.2012 was received on 15.12.2012 at village Mohra and the same was replied through cheque. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence his affidavit of Shri Mohd. Mustkeem as CW/A, Pamphlet as Annexure C-1, Vehicle Quotation as Annexure C-2, Photocopy of Ration Card as Annexure C3, Photocopy of Pass Book in the name of Rabia as Annexure C-4, Photocopy of PAN Card  of Rabia as Annexure C-5, Photocopy of PAN Card in the name of Mohd. Mustaqeem as Annexure C6, Photocopy of Pass Book in the name of Mustkeem as Annexure C7, Photocopy of Legal Notice as Annexure C8, postal receipt and acknowledgment as Annexure C9 to C13, letter issued by OPs dated 29^th December, 2012 as Annexure C14, envelope as Annexure C-15 and C-16, Again letter along with original cheque dated 29.12.2012 amounting to Rs.5150/- as Annexure C-17 and C-18 closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence, affidavit of Shri YP Dass, Director Metro Motors Ambala as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     From the perusal pamphlet as Annexure C-1, it is clearly evident that the OPs were providing loan facility upto 90% on the vehicle in question. Further, from the perusal of vehicle quotation (Annexure C-2), it is duly evident that the quotation of amounting Rs.3,25,000/-  was issued in the name of complainants No.1 Rabia  by the OPs on 15.11.2012. Further from the perusal of photocopy of pass book in the name of Rabia (Annexure C4) and photocopy of pass book in the name of Mustkeen (Annexure C7), it is also duly evident that both the complainants opened their saving account with nationalized bank as per direction of the OPs. Further the OPs themselves have admitted that amount Rs.5150/- was charged from the complainants vide receipt No.20492 dated 15.11.2012 as booking /token amount against the vehicle in question.

8.                     The only grievances of the complainants is that OPs refused to delivered the vehicle in question as per promise and assurance despite charging of Rs.5150/-. Learned Counsel for the complainants further argued that the complainants have suffered financial loss as well as harassment in the hands of OPs they were compelled to open the saving account and called so many times to fulfill the requirements. Learned counsel for the complainants further draws our attention towards the letter dated 29.12.2012 (Annexure C17) issued by OPs vide which the cheque of Rs.5150/- dated 27.12.2012 was sent to the complainants and argued that the OPs have mentioned in their letter that there are refunding the advance amount along with interest vide cheque No.004265 dated 27.12.2012 amounting to Rs.5150/- whereas, no amount of interest has been added in this amount i.e. Rs.5150/- as this amount of Rs.5150/- was charged by the OPs, which is duly evident from the letter/vehicle quotation (Annexure C2).  In this way, the OPs have issued the cheque of Rs.5150/- of the same amount charged from the complainants without any interest due to this reason the complainants have not encashed the cheque in question and the same is lying in this file as it is and learned counsel for the complainants requested for issuance of direction to the OPs to refund amount charged from the complainants along with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses. 

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued at length that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, because everything was made clear to both the complainants, learned counsel for the OPs further argued that an amount of Rs.5150/- charged  from the complainants had already been refunded vide cheque No.004265 dated 27.12.2012 but the complainants have not encashed the same as they produced the original cheque before the Court and the same is lying with the court file. Hence, there is neither delay on the part of the OPs nor any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as from the perusal of documents filed by the complainants i.e. pamphlet (Annexure C-1), quotation letter (Annexure C2), photocopy of passbooks (Annexure C4 and C7), it is duly evident that the version of the complainants is duly supported with the documents. Further, we have perused the written statement filed by the OPs wherein no such explanation has been given by the OPs that why they have not fulfilled their task despite charging the amount of Rs.5150/- from the complainants. It is not the case of the OPs that the complainants were asked to deposit the margin money of 10% and after that they will release the vehicle in question and the complainants refused to do so. It is not the case of the OPs that complainants could not fulfill or submit the required documents as per their demand. It has not been mentioned in the letter dated 29.12.2012 (Annexure C-17) that “ on examination of the documents submitted by your client in the name and address proof, there was a discrepancy for the documents, hence the case  for 100% finance could not be accepted.” Except this one nothing reason has been disclosed by the OPs. However, the OPs have also failed to point out any discrepancies in the name of and address proof as alleged in this letter (Annexure C17). So we are of the considered view, overall the OPs  have not fulfilled their task due to reason best known to them as they have advertised in the public through pamphlet which is duly evident from the copy of pamphlet as (Annexure C1).

11.                   Complainants have not encashed the cheque bearing No. 004265 dated 27.12.2012 issued by the OPs as the same is attached with the case file.

12.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint of the complainants is hereby partly allowed. OPs are hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.5150/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 15.11.2012 till actual realization and further the OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation as well as Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainants shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 29.11.2016.

                             

(S.C.SHARMA)                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

       MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar