Haryana

Panchkula

CC/168/2015

MOHINDER PAL SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S PREM AUTO CARE. - Opp.Party(s)

JAMINI TIWARI.

01 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                                   

Consumer Complaint No	:	168 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	25.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.01.2016

                                                                                                                 

 

Mohinder Pal Sharma s/o Sh.Prem Sagar, R/o House No.1050/B-2, Vishwakarma Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, Distt. Panchkula.

 

 

                                                                                                             ….Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s Prem Auto Care, Mahindra and Mahindra Dealer, SCO No.9, OP No.1, opposite White House, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, Distt. Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

Before:                       Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                                    Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                  Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:         Ms.Jaimini Tiwari, Adv., for the complainant. 

Mr.Vikas Kochhar, Adv., for the Op.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the Op with the averments that the complainant has purchased a second hand motorcycle Mahindra Pantero bearing No.HR-49D-3588, Engine NO.VNE-DB004250 and Chassis No.MCOKM1B14D1BO4020 on 20.02.2015 from OP for Rs.30,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- in cash to the Op No.1 and further the Op insisted the complainant to avail loan from IndusInd Bank for Rs.20,000/-. The Op No.1 got signed the blank papers from complainant and stated that he would complete the formalities and neither the invoice nor loan papers were provided to the complainant. The Op promised the complainant that total cost of Rs.30,000/- is inclusive of insurance and transfer of Registration charges but thereafter, the Op demanded payment of Rs.1100/- with regard to insurance and that later the money would be adjusted. The complainant paid Rs.1100/- but no receipt was issued to him in this regard. After receiving the cover note No.CHD-D 573865 dated 20.02.2015, the complainant found that in the cover note as well as the insurance policy, the manufacturing year of the vehicle was mentioned as 2014 and in description it’s mentioned as New whereas the vehicle in question was a second hand. The premium amount was Rs.1010/- inclusive of taxes and the complainant was charged Rs.1100/-. The IDV of vehicle was mentioned as Rs.23,000/- but it was sold to the complainant for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The complainant visited the office of Op for clarifications about the irregularities and incomplete information provided by the Op and then the owner of agency assured that the complainant need not to worry and amount would be adjusted, though the company has stopped the manufacturing of the model in question. Moreover, the Op has also taken another amount of Rs.2500/- from the complainant on account of processing fees of Indusind Bank and no receipt was provided to the complainant. After receiving the loan documents, the complainant found that the loan availed was Rs.28,510/- against the agreed loan amount of Rs.20,000/- and engine No. UBEDC001028 and Chassis No. MCDKM1B14D1C09910 as mentioned in the loan account was different from that of the motorcycle of the complainant which was mentioned in Insurance Policy as well as Receipt of Registration application. The processing fee was mentioned as Rs.300/- in the loan documents whereas the complainant paid Rs.2500/- for the same. After perusal of the loan documents, it reveals that the complainant was paying the EMIs for some other vehicle not for his vehicle. The complainant visited the OP and objected for the same and he was told that the complainant would have to pay only Rs.20,000/- and interest upon it & rest would be adjusted by the Op. Even, the Op did not provide any invoice, service book and job card. The complainant paid Rs.14,000/- in cash and loan amount of Rs.36,480/- i.e. total amount of Rs.52,150/- for a second hand vehicle. After 20 days, the Op demanded original insurance papers to get registration certificate. Thereafter, the complainant asked to return the original insurance and RC of the vehicle but the Op became deaf to the requisitions of the complainant. On 19.05.2015, the copy of registration of vehicle was supplied whereas it was issued on 25.03.2015 and was valid till 01.05.2015. The complainant visited in the office of Op many times for RC and to get the things sorted out but to no avail. However, the Op demanded an amount of Rs.6000/- for giving registration certificate of the vehicle by saying that SDM is asking for it. This act of the Op amount to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objection and submitted that the Op is the dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra and running its business at Pinjore for selling of new vehicles. It is submitted that the complainant approached the Op for purchase of Motor cycle of Mahindra & Mahindra on the ground to avail loan facilities and to purchase the vehicle on fully hypothecation basis. It is submitted that the Op told the complainant that there was no scheme from the company to pay a short amount and to get the vehicle. It is submitted that the complainant was willing to get the vehicle maximum financed, therefore, the complainant requested the Op for finance of the vehicle. It is submitted that the Op told the complainant that the officials of IndusInd Bank visited the office of Op for hypothecation of vehicle and on the request of complainant, the Op introduced the complainant with the officials of IndusInd Bank Ltd. for loan. It is submitted that the officials of Op checked the status of the complainant as per his earning and informed him that the bank would finance the vehicle only for Rs.27,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant showed his inability to pay the entire balance amount to the OP. It is submitted that the OP told the complainant that there vehicle model Pantero and the company has stopped its fresh manufacturing and if the complainant is ready to purchase the same then the Op would finance the vehicle for rest of the amount. It is submitted that the complainant agreed to purchase the vehicle model Pantero for RS.44,100/- excluding accessories. It is submitted that the complainant requested the Op to issue the estimate cost of the vehicle including accessories in order to get more financed amount from the IndusInd Bank, therefore, the Op issued the estimate cost of vehicle as Rs.45,500/- including accessories. It is submitted that after the calculation, the officials of the IndusInd Bank agreed to advance the loan amount of Rs.28,510/- to the complainant and on the request of the complainant, the officials of IndusInd Bank got executed the loan documents from the complainant and the complainant duly appended his signature after reading the contents of the loan documents. It is submitted that the transaction of loan documents as well as processing charges were made between the complainant and the officials of IndusInd Bank. It is submitted that the Op handed over the possession of the new vehicle make Mahindra & Mahindra Model Pantero to the complainant on assurance and promise of the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.16,990/- to him within six months. It is submitted that at the time of insurance, the complainant get the vehicle insured from the Insurance Company for Rs.1010/- for less value otherwise, he has to pay huge premium for the same. It is submitted that the complainant himself paid the amount of Rs.1010/- and amount of receipt has been duly mentioned at the bottom of the cover note so received by the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the Op received the amount of Rs.28,510/- from the IndusInd Bank against the loan of the complainant. It is submitted that during the period of six month, the OP many times requested the complainant to come to his office and pay the balance amount of Rs.16,990/- i.e. balance outstanding amount of the vehicle but he told the Op that he has paid the fees for getting the vehicle registered from the Registering Authority, Kalka and he is not possessing any amount to pay the Op & also promised that he would pay the balance amount of the vehicle. In the month of June, 2015, the Op requested the complainant to make the payment but the complainant was taking undue benefits of the same. The complainant requested the Op to keep his Registration Certificate as Security of the amount of Rs.16,990/- and he would come & collect the same on the payment of balance outstanding on this, the Op kept the RC of the vehicle. It is submitted that the Op requested many times the Op to make the payment of Rs.16,990/- and to collect his Registration Certificate but to no avail. It is submitted that Temporary Certificate of Registration itself showed that the vehicle was a new one as temporary No.HR99-TQ-T-4126 was issued to the vehicle which was valid from 20.02.2015to 19.03.2015. Even the Insurance Cover note itself showed that the vehicle was new which was prepared at the instance of the complainant. It is submitted that in the loan documents, the engine number and chassis number were wrongly written while preparing the loan documents. It is submitted that only the new vehicles could get temporary number and the second hand vehicles itself carried its registration number. It is denied that the OP insisted the complainant to avail loan from IndusInd Bank for Rs.20,000/-. It is submitted that the Op has no concern with the customers either to make the payment for vehicle in cash or through finance. It is denied that the Op has ever got the blank loan papers signed from the complainant on the ground that he would complete the formalities. It is denied that no invoice or loan papers were provided to the complainant. It is submitted that the Op has no concern with the transactions between the officials of the IndusInd Bank and the complainant. It is denied that the OP had promised that the total cost of Rs.30,000/- inclusive of insurance and transfer of registration charges. It is denied that the Op demanded the amount of Rs.1100/- on account of insurance and the complainant paid Rs.1100/- as insurance fee. It is denied that the complainant visited the office of Op for any irregularities and incomplete information. It is denied that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2500/- to the Op on account of processing charges. It is denied that the complainant was paying the EMIs for some other vehicle. It is submitted that for getting the vehicle registered, there is no requirements of Insurance cover. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the material on record carefully.
5. It is proved on the case file that the complainant had purchased a motor cycle Mahindra Pantero bearing No.HR-49D-3588, Engine NO.VNE-DB004250 and Chassis No.MCOKM1B14D1BO4020 on 20.02.2015 from OP vide invoice Annexure C6. In this very document cost of the motor cycle has been shown as Rs.45,500/-. It is also proved on the case file that the said motor cycle was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited having validity from 20.02.2015 to 19.02.2016 as shown in Annexure C2. Perusal of this document reveals that the IDV of the vehicle was Rs.23,000/- and even the year of manufacture of the vehicle in question has been shown to be of 2014. It is also proved on the case file that the said vehicle was financed by Indusind Bank Limited as shown in Annexure C3.
6.  Learned counsel for the OP has taken specific plea that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties  as the complainant has not made the insurer and the financer of the vehicle as party to the present complaint. We are in agreement with the contention raised by the OP as the complainant has failed to rebut this plea taken by the OP by filing replication to the reply.  Moreover,  after going through the material in the shape of complaint, reply, evidence and documents one thing is clear that the insurance company and the bank which financed the vehicle in question have placed active role as one has insured the vehicle and another one has financed the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the OP, therefore both were necessary parties to legitimately & judiciously decide the controversy in the present case. But since the complainant has not impleaded them as parties to the present complaint, complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, in view of the foregoing and entirety of the case, we dismiss the complaint being not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary patties. Parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced   

01.01.2016         S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR                  DHARAM PAL

                               MEMBER                 MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.                

 

                                                       

 

 

                                                                        DHARAM PAL                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT