BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 606 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 30.09.2022.
Date of Decision : 17.07.2024.
Mange Ram son of Sh. Nand Ram, resident of village Kheri, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Vikas Kumar authorized person of M/s V.K. Motors Bhadra Road, Vill. Chopta, District Sirsa. Mob. 98961-47047.
2. Director, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Akurdi, Pune, PIN- 411035 Phone 02027472851.
3. Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., 123 Angappa Naichen Street, City Chennai9 Madras) State Tamil Nadu through its Authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person
Sh. Anil Beniwal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. S.K. Nadha, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Opposite party no.3 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist. On 14.09.2022 he had purchased a motor cycle Bajaj Platina from op no.1 which was financed by op no.3. That before purchase of said motor cycle, the op no.1 told him that he will be given motor cycle for an amount of Rs.74,000/- being on road prize of the motor cycle out of which Rs.65,800/- will be of motor cycle and remaining amount will be regarding registration charges, insurance and file charges and he was told that he has to pay Rs.25,000/- in cash and remaining amount of Rs.49,000/- will be of loan amount. It is further averred that thereafter on 17.09.2022 he received a message from op no.3 that an amount of Rs.59,350/- has been sanctioned to him as loan amount and he has to repay the same in monthly installments of Rs.3891/- upon which he was very astonished and felt cheated because he was told that an amount of Rs.49,000/- will be of loan. That then complainant made telephonic call to op no.3 on toll free no. 18001036369 and told that he purchased the motor cycle for an amount of Rs.74,000/- out of which he has already paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- as down payment and remaining loan amount should be of Rs.49,000/- upon which they stated that they have made payment of loan amount of Rs.59,350/- to op no.1 and asked him to contact with op no.1. It is further averred that on the next day he visited to op no.1 and talked with him that they had told him that loan amount will be of Rs.49,000/- whereas he has received message about grant of loan of Rs.59,350/- upon which op no.1 stated that due to mistake on loan file amount of Rs.76,000/- instead of Rs.74,000/- has been written and he is returning amount of Rs.2000/- to him. That the complainant told him that even then after calculating an amount of Rs.59,350/- being loan amount and Rs.23,000/- after deduction of Rs.2000/-, the total of the amount of motor cycle comes to Rs.82,350/- whereas they stated that he will receive motor cycle for total amount of Rs.74,000/- and he also reprimanded op no.1 that they are not doing well with him upon which op no.1 stated that amount of Rs.5000/- is on account of file charges. That complainant then told him that although amount of file charge is very excessive but even then if an amount of Rs. five thousand is added then also the total of the amount does not become as Rs.82,350/- and in this way they have illegally recovered extra amount of Rs.8350/- from him but op no.1 did not listen anything and stated to him that he has to repay the loan amount which has been sanctioned to him and refused to return the remaining amount from the down payment of Rs.23,000/-. It is further averred that when before purchase of motor cycle he inquired about the price of the motor cycle from Subhash Motor in village Kagdana, the proprietor of that shop told him that after finance motor cycle will be delivered to him for an amount of Rs.75,000/- as on road prize and as op no.1 told him the on road prize of the motor cycle as Rs.74,000/- he purchased the motor cycle from op no.1 but ops no.1 and 3 in connivance with each other have cheated him and have caused unnecessary harassment, financial loss and have also done injustice with him. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops no.1 and 2 appeared. Op no.1 filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is false and has been filed on frivolous grounds and complainant has twisted the facts and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that op no.1 has received total amount of Rs.79,940/- from complainant on account of price of motor cycle and its registration, insurance and accessories and this was already told to complainant and op no.1 has not made any cheating with complainant. That complainant paid an amount of Rs.65,800/- towards price of motor cycle, Rs.4250/- was paid by him to op no.1 regarding registration charges, Rs.47342/- was paid for insurance, Rs.5158/- was paid by him for accessories and out of total amount, op no.1 received Rs.56.940/- from Shri Ram City Finance and remaining amount was paid to op no.1 by complainant in cash and in this way op no.1 has not committed any wrong thing with its customer and complainant has filed the present false complaint only to grab money from op no.1. On merits, the pleas of preliminary objections are reiterated, contents of complaint are denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is not involved in the alleged financial transaction of the vehicle in question. The answering op is the manufacturer of two wheelers and said vehicles are sold to the dealers on principal to principal basis and is no way related to the financial transaction entered among the complainant and ops no.1 and 3 and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.3 made.
5. Op no.3 did not appear despite delivery of notice sent through registered cover and as none appeared on behalf of op no.3, therefore, op no.3 was proceeded against exparte.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. delivery challan dated 14.09.2022 Ex.C1 and message regarding sanctioning of loan and installment Ex.C2.
7. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Vikas Kumar Proprietor as Ex. RW1/A and copies of documents i.e. tax invoice Ex.R1, receipt of the amount of Rs.4250/- for registration charges Ex.R2, certificate of insurance Ex.R3, again receipt of the amount of Rs.4250/- as Ex.R4 and invoice/ cash memo of the amount of Rs.5158/- regarding accessories as Ex.R5 and transaction document of the amount of Rs.56,940/- received by op no.1 from op no.3 as Ex.R6. OP no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A.
8. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 and have gone through the case file.
9. The complainant has admitted the fact that op no.1 told him that the price of the motor cycle will be of Rs.65,800/- and he has to pay remaining amount against registration charges, insurance and file charges but complainant claims that op no.1 told him that total on road prize of the motor cycle including above said expenses will be of Rs.74,000/-. But however we are not convinced and do not agree with the submissions of the complainant. The complainant has only placed on file delivery challan dated 14.09.2022 which mentions the price of the motor cycle as Rs.65,800/- and has also placed on file copy of text message Ex.C2 whereby he was informed by op no.3 that he has been sanctioned loan of Rs.59,350/- and his first EMI of Rs.3891/- will be due on 07.10.2022. Whereas op no.1 has placed on file tax invoice of the amount of Rs.65,800/- i.e. price of motor cycle as Ex.R1, receipt of the amount of Rs.4250/- regarding registration charges and certificate of insurance of the motor cycle as Ex.R3 vide which his motor cycle was got insured against premium amount of Rs.4732/- and the total of these amounts i.e. Rs.65,800/- plus Rs.4250/- plus Rs.4732/- becomes Rs.74,782/- i.e. more than amount of Rs.74,000/- as claimed by complainant. Further op no.1 has also placed on file invoice/ cash memo of the amount of Rs.5158/- regarding accessories purchased by complainant for the said motor cycle from op no.1 and if this amount is added in the amount of Rs.74,782/-, then the total becomes of Rs.79,940/-. The complainant has not denied the fact that he did not purchase accessories for his motor cycle from op no.1. The op no.1 received an amount of Rs.56,940/- from op no.3 as loan amount as motor cycle was purchased by complainant after finance from op no.3 and initially op no.1 received an amount of Rs.25,000/- as down payment from complainant and complainant himself admitted that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was returned by op no.1 to him. No doubt complainant received message from op no.3 that loan amount of Rs.59,350/- has been sanctioned to him and amount of Rs.56940/- was paid by op no.3 to op no.1 but remaining amount of Rs.2410/- (Rs.59,350/- minus Rs.56,940/-) may be the file charges as loan amount is sanctioned by finance company after receiving file charges. So, it cannot be said at all that actually loan amount was of Rs.49000/- as told by op no.1 and the version of complainant in this regard is proved false and not supported by any documentary evidence because even if the version of complainant is believed then the total of the amount of Rs.49,000/- plus Rs.23,000/- as paid by complainant as down payment becomes Rs.72,000/- and actual amount cannot be of Rs.72,000/- or Rs.74,000/- as claimed by complainant if as mentioned above, total amount of the price of the motor cycle, registration charges and insurance is calculated which becomes Rs.74,782/-. The complainant has not placed on file any estimate given by op no.1 to prove the fact that op no.1 ever assured the complainant that on road price of the motor cycle in question will be Rs.74,000/- including its price and other charges of registration, insurance etc. So it appears that none of the ops have caused any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service towards the complainant and complainant has failed to prove his allegations.
10. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 17.07.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
