BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 189 of 2015
Date of Institution : 29.10.2015.
Date of Decision : 03.11.2016.
Jarnail Singh son of Shri Thola Singh, resident of House No. 378, village & PO Sukhchain, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- M/s Sai Autos, Near Punjab National Bank Branch, Kalanwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ Manager.
- TVS Motor Company, Jayalakshmi Estates V-Floor, 8, Haddows Road, Chennai- 600 006, through its authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Nageshwar Yadav, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
Case of complainant, in brief, is that he was having an old motor cycle. In October, 2013, the op no.1 who is authorized dealer of op no.2 at Kalanwali, Distt. Sirsa had launched a scheme for exchange of old motor cycle with new TVS motor cycle. The complainant visited to op no.1 and inquired about the said exchange scheme upon which op no.1 disclosed that old motor cycle will be retained by it and its price will be deducted from the price of new motor cycle and in case he is not having sufficient amount for purchasing the motor cycle, then op no.1 will arrange for finance for purchasing the motor cycle. The complainant agreed for the said scheme and gave his old motor cycle to op no.1 and purchased a new TVS sport KS 100 CC motor cycle bearing engine No.CF5KD1019260, chassis No.MD62MF53D3K60572. The cost of old motor cycle was assessed at Rs.15,000/- and op no.1 got arranged for the remaining price of motor cycle i.e. Rs.29,700/- from IndusInd Bank on 7.10.2013. The said financed amount was repayable by the complainant in 18 monthly installment of Rs.2032/- each. At that time, op no.1 stated that registration certificate of the motor cycle will be got issued by it of its own and same alongwith insurance will be retained by it and will be given to complainant when he will repay the entire loan amount to the said bank. The complainant has already cleared his loan amount in April, 2015 and the bank has issued No Due certificate to the complainant on 3.6.2015 upon which, he visited to op no.1 and asked for the registration certificate and insurance policy but op no.1 put off the matter on one false pretext or the other. Since then he has taken number of rounds to op no.1 but op no.1 has failed to give the said documents to him. The complainant is legally entitled to receive the same from op no.1 and due to non supply of above said documents, he has been facing unnecessary harassment and is also burdened with penalty to the authorities/ traffic police. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement denying each and every allegations of complainant. It is submitted that answering op never launched a scheme for exchange of old motor cycle with new TVS motor cycle in October, 2013 as alleged because the Sai Auto came into existence in the year 2014 and the answering op was not authorized dealer of op no.1 in October, 2013. Therefore, question of exchange of motor cycle of complainant and to provide new motor cycle by op no.1 does not arise at all. The answering op also did not ask the complainant for arranging any finance for purchase of motor cycle. Remaining averments have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer of TVS Motor cycles did not appear despite issuance of summons through registered post and was proceeded against exparte.
4. In evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, form No.35 of IndusInd Bank Ex.C2 and no objection certificate of bank Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1, copy of registration of op no.1 issued by ETO dated 20.1.2014 Ex.R2, copy of form VAT-G1 Ex.R3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The opposite party no.1 has categorically averred that op no.1 had never launched a scheme for exchange of old motor cycle with new motor cycle in October, 2013 as alleged by complainant because the Sai Auto came into existence in the year 2014 and op no.1 was not authorized dealer of op no.2 in October, 2013. To corroborate its version, the op no.1 has tendered his affidavit Ex.R1 alongwith documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. Ex.R2 is the certificate of registration of Sai Autos issued on 21.1.2014. Whereas, the complainant has not proved his case by any leading reliable and cogent evidence that firm/agency of op no.1 was in existence in the month of October, 2013 and op no.1 launched the above said scheme in that month. The complainant has not produced any document showing exchange of his old motorcycle or bill of new motorcycle. From the documents Ex.C2 i.e. Form 35 of IndusInd Bank and no objection certificate of that Bank Ex.C3, it is not proved at all that op no.1 got arranged the finance amount from the Bank for purchase of motor cycle.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his allegations against the opposite parties. There is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 03.11.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
