Punjab

Sangrur

CC/464/2017

Shishan Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Tulsi Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sumir Fatta

21 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 464                                                                                         

                                                                  Instituted on:  13.09.2017                                                                                    

                                                                Decided on:    21.02.2018

 

Shishan Pal aged 32 years son of Kishori Lal resident of Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.   

Versus

1.       M/s Tulsi Motors Kakerwal- Barnala  Road, Near Mata Mansa Devi Mandir, Dhuri through its partners.   

2.       Shiv Kumar  resident of House No.332, near Max Auto, Khalifa Bagh, Street No.5, Sangrur.

3.       Jagdish Kumar c/o Arora Emporium, Sunami Gate, Near Patrol Pump, Sangrur.

4.       Sanjeev Bajaj Care of Army School, Accountant in Cantonment Area Near Baba Sahib Dass Samad, Sangrur.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Sumir Fatta  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&3 :     Exparte                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.2&4 :     Shri H.S.Tiwana, Advocate                          

 

 

Quorum

                                                

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg,  Member

 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Shishan Pal complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Ops launched  a sale promotion scheme consisting of various members for period  of 36 months as per which member had to pay 36 equal monthly installment of Rs.1550/- per month  and complainant  became member of said scheme vide membership no.235 of Group D and paid 19 monthly installments  of Rs.1550/-per month. Thereafter the Ops failed to receive further monthly installments alleging closure of scheme by OPs wrongly. The OPs thus received total amount of Rs.29450/- as consideration and issued receipts. The OPs must have refunded the  said paid amount of Rs.29450/-to the complainant alongwith interest but they failed to refund  the said amount despite repeated requests. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.29450/- alongwith interest @9% per annum  from the date of deposit

ii)     OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,

 iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were sent to the OPs but none has appeared for the OPs no. 1 and 3 despite service. As such OPs no. 1 and 3 were proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs no.2 and 4, it has been stated that Op no.3 was looking after the account of OP no.1 who made embezzlement  in the accounts and showed loss to OP no.1 due to which TVS motors suspended the dealership of the OPs and stopped to provide the vehicles to the OPs due to which the OPs were constrained to stop the said scheme. It is submitted that the matter was settled with most of the members of the group in view of the financial crises but the complainant and few other members refused to settle the matter. It is also submitted that the complainant was called to settle the matter, but he refused to do the same.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.3 and 4 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OPs 3&4/1 and closed evidence.

5.             It is the case of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.29450/- to OPs against 19 monthly installments of Rs.1550/- per month and OPs had promised to deliver the vehicle or adjustment of its price at the end of scheme but  they discontinued the scheme. Thus, the OPs  are liable to  refund the amount alongwith interest. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that Op no.3 was looking after the account of OP no.1 who made embezzlement  in the accounts and showed loss to OP no.1 due to which TVS motors suspended the dealership of the OPs and stopped to provide the vehicles to the OPs due to which the OPs were constrained to stop the said scheme. Surprisingly, the OPs have not produced on record any document/ letter which shows that TVS Motors actually suspended the dealership of the OPs. Learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the matter was settled with most of the members of the group in view of the financial crises but the complainant and few other members refused to settle the matter.  It means that the OPs have admitted deposit of Rs.29450/- by the complainant with them and their liability to refund the same. Learned counsel for the OPs has produced copy of judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission  titled as Director, Command Area Vs. Nemichand Gupta, First Appeal No.889 of 2016,  Vipan Kumar  Vs. M/s Aerovision Electronics, First Appeal No.1512 of 2010  of Hon'ble State Commission Punjab and another copy of judgment of Madhya Pradesh State Commission namely Smt. Sushma Dosaj Vs. Shakha Prabanhak, First Appeal No.1733/2011. We have perused the above said copy of judgment of First Appeal No.889 of 2016 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the complainant  is a consumer and this judgment is in favour of complainant. We have also perused the ruling Vipan Kumar Vs. Aerovision Electronics, First Appeal No.1512 of 2010 wherein the complaint was dismissed on ground of non-proving of case by complainant as complainant failed to place on record his own affidavit. The prayer was meant qua unfair trade practice restraining opposite parties to repeat unfair trade practice and complainant failed to lead evidence. However, in present case, the complainant has placed his own affidavit supported with documents and facts pleaded by complainant have been admitted by the opposite parties. Another ruling namely Sushma Dosaj Vs. Shakha Prabanhak , First Appeal No.1733/2011, the consumer dispute was pertaining to lucky draw of prize coupon  and not pertaining to assured performance. In that case,  the counsel for respondent admitted the complainant  to be a consumer qua the investment of money in scheme and the matter pertaining to gift coupon qua which no consideration was paid and complainant was not held consumer. The case in hand  pertains to payment of consideration and refunding of the amount  and not qua nay Prize Coupon and the subject matter  pertains to payment of money under scheme and non-repayment of same despite closure of scheme. In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant has cited a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Brij Pal Sharma  Vs.  Ghaziabad Development Authority, 2005 (3) CLT 519 wherein it was held  that grant of interest @18% per annum to depositers by way of damages and compensation quite justified. It was further held that  when private interest is pitted against the public interest, the latter must prevail over the former.

6.             From the above discussion we find that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs and  OPs are deficient in service for non-refunding the deposited amount of Rs.29450/- alongwith interest.   Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.29450/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. We further direct OPs to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- on account of  mental pain agony, harassment and also to Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                February 21, 2018

 

 

 

                (SaritaGarg)                       ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Member                                 President