Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1348/2015

Narinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Padam Cars Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri V.K.Singla

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                Complaint No.  1348

                                                Instituted on:    19.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       14.06.2016

 

Narinder Pal Singh son of Shri Sukhdev Singh, resident of Master Colony, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             Padam Cars Private Ltd. Mehlan Road, Sangrur through its Managing Director/Manager.

2.             Padam Cars Private Ltd. Backside Hero Honda Showroom, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda through its Managing Director.

3.             Swaranjit Singh son of Shri Megh Nath, resident of Janta Nagar, Ward No.2, B.H.147, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri V.K.Singla, Advocate.

For OPs                    :       Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Narinder Pal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant visited the showroom of OPs number 1 and 2 to purchase a new Chevrolet Sail car. It is further averred that the complainant had one old Indica Car bearing registration number PB-11-AV-9012 in the month of December, 2012  the OPs agreed to take the old car of the complainant at a price of Rs.1,50,000/- and took the delivery of the old car from the complainant by OP number 3 on 12.12.2012. It is further averred that on 20.12.2012, the complainant went to the Ops and took a new car bearing registration number PB-13-AE-0799 from the OPs for Rs.6,32,997/-, as such, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,54,995/- as down payment and further amount of Rs.3,78,000/- was got financed from Magma Fincorp Ltd. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.35,390/- to the OPs on account of registration charges.  It is further averred that the dispute  between the complainant and the Ops is only that the Ops neither paid the cost of the old Indica car to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- as agreed upon nor they returned the car in question to the complainant, despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to return the Indica car number PB-11-AV-9012 or to make the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 20.12.2012 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, it is admitted that the OPs took the old car of the complainant on 12.12.2012, but after keeping there about a week, the Ops failed to sell the same and asked the complainant to take his car back, but the complainant told the Ops to keep it for some time more. It is further averred that about passing of 30 days, the Ops again asked the complainant to took back the car, otherwise he has to pay the parking charges from the month of February, 2013, but the complainant failed to take back the car.  As such, the Ops have clearly mentioned in the written reply that the Ops are entitled to recover the amount of Rs.2,66,000/- from the complainant on account of parking charges for the period from February, 2013 to December, 2015.  It is stated further that the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.2,66,000/- for taking the delivery of the car in question. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of agreement dated 12.12.2012, Ex.C-3 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-4 copy of statement of Pankaj Sharma, Ex.C-5 copy of statement of Gurdeep Singh Jassal, Ex.C-6 copy of RC, Ex.C-7 copy of receipt of payment dated 31.12.2012, Ex.C-8 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C-9 copy of sale certificate, Ex.C-10 copy of receipt dated 16.1.2013, Ex.C-11 copy of RC, Ex.C-12 copy of letter dated 3.12.2013 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.Op/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             A bare perusal of the complaint as well as reply of the complaint show that the complainant handed over the old Indica car in question on 12.12.2012 to the OPs for selling the same, but the OPs could not sell the same. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated visits of the complainant to the Ops number 1 and 2, they did not return back the old Indica car to the complainant.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the complainant was repeatedly told to get back the Indica car, failing which the complainant had to pay Rs.250/- per day as parking charges w.e.f. 1.2.2013.  As such, now  the OPs have demanded an amount of Rs.2,66,000/- on account of parking charges from the complainant.  There is nothing on record produced by the complainant to show that he ever approached the OPs for getting back the old Indica Car.  Moreover, it is worth mentioning here that the complainant had given the car in question to the Ops for selling purpose only.  There is nothing on record to show that the complainant paid any consideration/service charges for selling the same or promised to pay for the same.  As such, we feel that the complainant does not fall under the ambit of the 'consumer dispute', as he has failed to prove himself to be the consumer of the OPs. 

 

6.             Further it is an admitted fact that the cause of action arose to the complainant when he handed over the car to the Ops number 1 and 2 on 12.12.2012 for selling purpose, meaning thereby the cause of action arose to the complaint on 12.12.2012 and the complainant could file the complaint within the period of two years as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereas the complainant has filed the present complaint only on 19.10.2015  after expiry of about 34 months, as such, we feel that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly barred by time in view of section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                June 14, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member