Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/165

M/s Bharat Engineering - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Pinacal Vehical & Services Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Harjot Singh

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:165 dated 01.09.2000.                                                         Date of decision: 20.01.2023.

 

M/s. Bharat Engineering Agencies, HSS, Twist Drill and Rounds having its registered office at 408, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana-141003 through its authorized representative Sh. Vikas Sharma son of Ranvir Sharma, R/o. House No.3126/B-34, Near Chandi Ram Poltry Farm, New Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

M/s. Pinacal Vehical and Services Pvt.ltd. having its registered office at Guruvayoor Road, P.O. Ayyanthole Thrissur-680005 (Cochin) through its Authorized representative.                                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Harjot Singh Harikay, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant firm is a partnership firm of Sh. Parmod Kumar Jain and Sh. Mohit Jain and is in business of manufacturing and supplying of tools. The opposite party is the authorized seller of Hyundai Cars. The representative of the complainant visited the showroom of the opposite parties for purchase of new Hyundai Creta 1.6 CRDI model and the opposite party showed the model of the said car and the deal was finalized in Rs.15,38,035/-. The complainant paid the entire money in three transactions i.e. first transaction of Rs.2,54,548/- dated 27.03.2019, second transaction of Rs.9,00,000/- dated 30.03.2019 through RTGS from account No.30046877688. Prior to this, the opposite parties told the complainant telephonically that the car is being released from Jaipur and also instructed the complainant to get an insurer prior to release of the said car. On the suggestion of the opposite party, the complainant spent Rs.66,065/- on the insurance on 25.04.2019 through intermediate code BR501053 through Insurance Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, the opposite parties imposed another condition upon the complainant to pay the remaining full amount and then the car will be handed over to the complainant upon which the complainant deposited the remaining amount of Rs.3,83,587/- in cash to the opposite party and nothing remain was due. After receiving full payment, the opposite party generated bill of Rs.15,38,135/- including GST bearing invoice No.HYPNSNUV1800841 dated 03.05.2019 in which the opposite party falsely mentioned engine and chassis number rather than the insured vehicle and opposite party at the last moment changed the deal by mentioning false engine and chassis number on the bill. The said car was purchased for personal use of partner of the firm Sh. Mohit Kumar Jain. The complainant made correspondence with the opposite party for getting the vehicle but the opposite party neither supplied the car despite repeated attempts nor returned the amount taken by it as price of the vehicle. The complainant has been requesting to return the full amount paid on 03.05.2019 since the last 10 months but the opposite party has not considered the genuine request of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 04.12.2019 through counsel Sh. Harjot Singh Harikay, Advocate but to no avail. The act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has caused mental tension and agony to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation besides Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the opposite party to hand over the car along with Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for torture, tension and mental agony along with Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice was sent to opposite party through registered post on 13.04.2022 but the same was not received back either served or unserved even after elapse of period of 30 days. As such, the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.06.2022

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of aadhar card of the complainant, Ex. C2 is the copy of PAN card  of the complainant firm, Ex. C3 is the copy of statement of account of the complainant, Ex. C4 is the certificate of authorization in name of Mr. Vikash Sharma dated 19.11.2019 issued by complainant firm, Ex. C5 is the copy of email dated 12.07.2019, Ex. C6 is the copy of certificate of insurance and  policy schedule w.e.f. 25.04.2019 to 24.04.2019, Ex. C7 is the legal notice dated 04.12.2019, Ex. C8 is the postal receipt, Ex. C9 is the copy of bill issued by the opposite party and closed the exparte evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and produced on record by the complainant.

5.                The counsel for the complainant has contended that the opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice firstly inducing the complainant to part with the entire sale consideration of the vehicle and then generated fake bill and induced the complainant to obtain an insurance policy.

6.                Perusal of the documents shows that the opposite party received an amount of Rs.2,54,548/- on 27.03.2019, Rs.9,00,000/- on 30.03.2019 and Rs.3,83,587/- on 03.05.2019 and after receiving the amount of Rs.15,38,135/- inclusive of GST generated an invoice No.HYPNSNUV1800841 dated 03.05.2019. Also on the advise of the opposite party, an insurance policy was obtained by the complainant by paying a premium of Rs.66,065/- on 25.04.2019. All the acts of the opposite party gave reasonable belief and assurance to the complainant for delivery of the vehicle but in fact the opposite party had no intention from the very inception to deliver the car. Even the opposite party did not respond to the legal notice dated 04.12.2019. Moreover, the exparte evidence of the complainants has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party  amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper if the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,38,135/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment along with composite costs of Rs.10,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.15,38,135/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The opposite parties are further made to pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Bharat Engineering Vs M/s. Pinacal Vehicle                    CC/20/165

Present:       Sh. Harjot Singh Harikay, Advocate for complainant.

                   Op exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.15,38,135/- along with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The opposite parties are further made to pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:20.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.