BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAPURTHALA.
Complaint No. 27 of 2020
Date of Instt. 06.03.2020
Date of Decision :30.09.2024
Kulwant Singh son of Madha Singh r/o Village Walipur, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.
....Complainant Versus
Raga Motors Private Limited, B.O. Village Barindpur, Sultanpur Lodhi Road, District Kapurthala through its authorized signatory.
Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Branch Jalandhar through its Manager.
...Opposite parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
Quorum: Before: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia (President)
Smt. Rajita Sareen (Member)
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh (Member)
Present: Sh. Prince Kaushal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vinay Garg, Advocate for OP No. 1.
Sh. Ashish Kumar, Advocate for OP No.2.
Order
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh (Member)
1. FACTS OF COMPLAINT
The Complainant has preferred this complaint , under section 35 of the consumers protection act, 2019 (in short, “ THE ACT”) against the opposite parties, seeking following directions to them :
i) to return the BOLERO MAXI TRUCK and original cheques to the complainant
ii) to re-adjust the future instalments of the loan
iii) to make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages on account of mental tension ,agony and harassment
iv) to make payment of Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses.
Brief facts , as setout in the complaint are that complainant purchased a Bolero Truck Plus bearing Engine No. TBJ4A76646, Chassis No. MAIZP2TBKJ2A52218 from the OP No.1 on 20/2/2018 for a sale consideration of Rs 5,53,448/- and the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 85,000/- as down payment and for the remaining amount, the opposite party no.1 got financed the said amount to the complainant through opposite party no.2, who is a finance company. As per rules, the opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant by pasting a temporary number PB 08 CJ 0982 on the said vehicle. The complainant paid the amount of insurance as well as for preparation of registration certificate to the opposite party no.1, who assured to get it prepared within 15/20 days. Thereafter the complainant has been approaching the opposite party no. 1 to issue the original registration certificate to the complainant but the opposite party no.1 has been lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Unfortunately the police impounded the vehicle of the complainant, under FIR no. 117 dated 20.10.2018 u/s 482 IPC PS Talwandi Chaudhrian with the allegation that the temporary number so pasted in the said vehicle is fake one. The complainant was shocked to know this fact as the same number was released by the opposite party no.1 but he was wrongly involved in the said Case. The complainant obtained bail in the said FIR and also took the vehicle on Sapurdari by spending huge amount in the said process. The police also alleged that the said number was issued to one Mulkh Raj on 13.3.2013.After registration of the FIR and getting the same released, the complainant appropriated the Opposite party no.1 and asked about the same but the opposite party no.1 refused to help the complainant in any manner. On account of said dispute, the complainant could not repay some of the installments and the opposite party no. 2 wrongly and illegally took the custody of the said vehicle on 9.11.2019. In whole process there is no fault on the part of the complainant. Complainant has spent huge amount on purchase of the vehicle but on account of giving false and fake temporary registration number, the complainant has been falsely involved in false criminal case as well as his life has been ruined, his hard earned amount has been spent and the vehicle has alsobeen taken by the opposite party, as such it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the opposite party, causing harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant. The complainant has to face trial in the said false case, which was registered without any fault on the part of the complainant. This amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence complaint.
2. DEFENCE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :
Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OP-1 & OP-2 appeared through counsel and filed written reply, whereby OP No.1 contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complainant on account of his acquiescence's, latches, omissions and admissions is estopped from filing the present complaint against the answering respondent and the same is liable to be dismissed. Complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering respondent as the complainant has already received his entire documents/forms regarding sale of Bolero Maxi Truck plus 1.2 T BS IV PS from the answering OP at the time of delivery of the vehicle which includes invoice, Form 21 and Form 22. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. So the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Moreover the complainant in his complaint has not mentioned any of the documents which has never been furnished by the answering OP to him. On Merits, the complainant has purchased Bolero Maxi Truck plus 1.2 T BS IV PS from the answering respondent vide Invoice dated 20.05.2018 for a sum of Rs.5,53,448/-. It is incorrect that the complainant has paid a down payment of Rs.85,000/- to the answering respondent. In fact the respondent has paid a sum of Rs.47,500/- on 16.02.2018 and Rs.25,000/- on 20.02.2018 totaling Rs.83,500/- to the answering respondent. It is incorrect that the answering respondent has anything to do with the financing of the vehicle. It is the deal between the prospective purchaser and the finance company. The dealer has nothing to do with the financing transaction between a prospective purchaser and its financer. The complainant was allotted a temporary No. PB-08-TEMP-CJ-0982. It is correct that the complainant has paid the amount for insurance of the vehicle. It is incorrect that the complainant has paid the amount for registration of the vehicle. in fact the complainant was living in other District then the District of the seller of the vehicle so as per the Punjab Government Instructions so no dealer can make any registration of the commercial vehicle sold in other district, as such, there was no question of the answering respondent accepting any sum from the complainant for registration of his vehicle. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 appeared through counsel and filed their written reply by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant does not lie against the answering respondent as no cause of action of the complainant is made against the answering OP. The complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and had suppressed the real facts from the Court. So the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score. The real fact of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck Plus 1.2 T PS BSIV from the opposite party no.1 and took the finance from the answering respondent vide agreement dated 21/02/2018 having is customer ID 11671318 in which the finance amount was of Rs. 4,96,000/-, the finance charges were of Rs. 2,15,000/- and the agreement value was of Rs. 7,11,0000/- which was to repayable by the consumer to the answering respondent in 60 installments of Rs.11,850/- each but which was not paid by the complainant to the opposite party no.2 as per the agreement of loan. When the complainant fails to pay the installments to the answering respondent then it had been surrendered by the complainant himself and reposed by the official of the answering respondent for which he had taken inventory of items of vehicle issued from the official of answering OP, which receipt is relied upon by the complainant in his complaint as Ex C5 on which he duly signed which shows that the consent of the complainant was there while surrendering the vehicle to the answering OP. In the case of complainant the answering OP has suffered a loss of Rs.1,89,498/-. On merits, the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OPs reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those made in the written statement.
5. EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES :
I) To prove his claim, counsel for complainant has tendered an affidavit of the complainant Ex. CA along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex. C- 5 as evidence.
II) The Counsel for the opposite party OP-1 on the other hand have tendered an affidavit Ex. OP-1/A as evidence along with documents Ex. OP-1/1 to OP-1/3, in support of his contentions.
The Counsel for the OP-2 submitted affidavit Ex.Op-2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/2 to strengthen his case.
6. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES -
At the outset, it will be apposite to mention that in the present complaint OP-1 is RAGA MOTORS PVT LTD and OP-2 is MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCE CO. and hereinafter the parties will be referred accordingly for the sake of brevity. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and gone through the case file carefully .We have also perused the written arguments submitted by both the parties . Now let us examine their contentions in the present dispute one by one.
a) COMPLAINANT - Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant had purchased a Bolero Truck Maxi plus 1.2T BS-IV from the OP-1 (Raga Motors) on 20.2.18 to earn his livelihood , bearing Engine No TBJ4A76646 and chassis No MA1ZP2TBKJ2A52218. Total price paid, as per GST INVOICE (Ex.-C1 ) for the vehicle was Rs.5,53,448/- out of which, Rs.4,96,000/- was financed by the OP-2 and balance amount was paid by the complainant as down payment . At the time of delivery of the vehicle, complainant paid the insurance charges, and as alleged preparation fee for the permanent registration certificate of the said vehicle was also paid to the OP-1. There after as per rule, the OP-1 delivered the vehicle bearing Temp. registration No PB-08 CJ 0982, to the complainant. Learned Counsel for the complainant further vehemently contended that inspite of so many visit, OP-1 failed to provide the complainant a copy of permanent registration certificate of the said vehicle, as promised to be delivered with in15/20 days at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Counsel for complainant further argued that unfortunately the police impounded the ibid vehicle, and FIR NO.117 u/s 482 IPC was registered at PS Talwandi Chaudhrian against complainant on 20.10.18, with allegation that temporary NO, so written on the said vehicle is fake as the said NO. stand already issued to one Mulkh Raj of Jalandhar on 13.3.13 , FIR is Ex-C3 . The complainant obtained the bail in the said FIR and also got the vehicle released on spurdari.
Learned Counsel further strongly contended that OP- 1 did not bother to resolve the registration issue of the vehicle, even when it was brought to his notice that FIR has been registered due to fake No. of said vehicle. Under these circumstances, due to tension and harassment the complainant could not re-pay some of the monthly instalments, as a result of which, the OP-2 took the custody of the vehicle and issued an inventory report of items received from the complainant on 9.11.19 which is Ex.C-5. On the other hand the complainant has vehemently denied that he had himself surrendered the vehicle to the OP-2 due to non-payment of instalments. Thus in whole process, there is no fault on the part of the complainant. The complainant has been put to unnecessary harassment and has been falsely involved in criminal case due to issuing of fake temporary registration NO. to the said vehicle. As such it is clear cut case of deficiency in service , unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of OP-1 & OP-2, causing harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant. Therefore complainant is entitled for all the reliefs as prayed for.
b) OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1- Learned Counsel for the OP-1, while arguing on the similar lines of reply and written arguments filed, admitted that a BOLERO MAXI TRUCK plus was sold to the complainant for Rs.553448 /- on 20.2.18, for which amount of Rs 4.96 lakhs was financed by the OP-2 & balance amount was paid by the complainant as down payment. This loan amount was to be returned in 60 instalments each of Rs.11850. OP-1 vehemently contended that all the documents for the sale of said vehicle including sale certificate FORM 21 (Ex.-C2), GST INVOICE ( Ex.C-1) and insurance policy were handed over to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle, along with temporary registration NO PB 08 C J 0982. Complainant was further clearly informed that as per Office order of the Panjab Government dated 27/11/2014, dealer can issue only Temporary registration certificate to commercial / Transport Vehicle at the time of sale of Vehicle and not the permanent/regular registration certificate. Counsel for the OP-1 further argued that no amount was paid to Raga motors for the permanent registration certificate of the said vehicle, as Raga Motors (OP-1) is not authorized to issue regular/permanent registration certificate to commercial/Transport Vehicle. Under such conditions question of receiving of charges for permanent RC of the vehicle from the complainant does not arise . IN this category permanent RC is issued by the District Transport Authority where the purchaser resides, however payment for the insurance of the said vehicle is admitted to be received as per Ex.OP-1/1 . and vehicle was got insured from NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Counsel for the OP-1 further contended that temporary registration NO PB 08 CJ 0982 was got verified from the RTA Jalandhar for its genuineness, and in its report the said temp NO. was found genuine vide dated 30.10.2019 . As such there is no fault on the part of the Op- 1 ( Raga Motors ) as complainant has failed to get the VEHICLE registered from the RTO of the District of his residence. The Complainant has failed to prove his case, So it should be dismissed with cost.
c) OPPOSITE PARTY NO-2 Learned counsel for the OP-2, in addition to written arguments, contended on the similar lines of reply filed and submitted that complainant had purchased Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck plus 1.2T PS BS IV from the opposite party No 1 and took the loan from the answering respondent NO2 vide agreement dated 21.2.18 having customer ID-11671318 , in which the financed amount was of Rs 4.96 lakhs, finance charges were 2.15 lakhs and the net value of the agreement was of Rs. 7.11 lakhs. The learned Counsel for the OP-2 further contended that this agreement value (7.11 Lacs) was to be repaid by the complainant to the answering respondent in 60 instalments of Rs. 11850/- each month, but which was not paid to the OP-2 as per the agreement of the loan by the complainant . When the complainant failed to repay the instalments to the answering respondent then it had been surrendered by the complainant himself and reposed by the official of the answering party OP-2 for which complainant had taken inventory of items received by the official of the answering OP-2 duly signed by both parties, which shows that consent of the complainant was there while surrendering the vehicle to OP-2. So, said vehicle was not forcibly taken by OP-2, as alleged in the complaint, this inventory receipt is EX. C-5 on which the complainant has relied upon. Counsel for OP2 further vehemently contended that dispute of the complainant is only with the OP-1 for the non issue of the permanent registration certificate of the said vehicle Bolero, for which the complainant has to prove the case against the OP-1. Counsel for OP2 further argued that due to non payment of instalments by the complainant the answering respondent has suffered a loss of Rs.189498/-. Counsel for OP2 also denied that answering party has any cheque with them issued by the complainant as alleged in the complaint, no evidence of same is produced by the complainant . Therefore it is prayed that complaint of the complainant against OP2 be dismissed with heavy cost.
7. CONSIDERATION OF CONTENTION :-
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of both the parties and after taking into consideration the entire facts as elaborated on the file , the merit of the case is as below ,
As per statement of account regarding sale of vehicle, Ex.OP1/1 , OP1 admitted that Complainant had purchased Bolero Maxi Truck Plus 1.2T BS IV bearing Engine No.TBJ4A76646, Chassis No. MAIZP2TBKJ2A52218 from OP-1 vide GST invoice dated 20.2.18 which is Ex.C-1 for a sum of Rs.5,53,448 . Sale certificate FORM-21 which is Ex.C-2 was also issued by the OP1 to Regional Transport Officer TARN-TARAN. Ex.-OP1/1 filed by OP1 clearly reveals that gross amount paid to OP1 by complainant was 5,71,024/-including the cost of said vehicle, insurance and other charges. Complaint got the vehicle financed from the OP2 through OP1 for an amount of Rs.4,96,000/- ,returnable in 60 instalments of Rs.11850/- each month, and the balance amount was paid by the complainant himself as down payment. OP No.1 delivered the vehicle to complainant with Temporary registration NO.PB 08 C J 0982. In the present complaint, all the facts of the case like sale/purchase by OP1/complainant, hypothecation by OP2 and impounding of vehicle by Police due to false Temp. no of the said vehicle are fully admitted by both the parties. Therefore there are only two issues of the complaint to be decided upon , one is non issuing of permanent registration certificate of Bolero Maxi truck transport vehicle to complainant , in spite of fact that charges for the preparation of permanent registration certificate was paid to the OP1 by the complainant. And the second issue is regarding taking illegal custody of the disputed vehicle by OP2 on 9.11.19 due to non- payment of monthly instalments by the complainant to the OP2. Now coming to the merit of both the issues, let us examine the merit of each issue one by one.
a) Non- issue of permanent registration no. to said vehicle- In this regard it is relevant to mention here that Complainant has not filed even a single document as evidence to prove that payment for the preparation of permanent registration certificate for the said vehicle was ever paid by him to the OP1. Therefore, simple assertion in the complaint by complainant that he had paid the charges for the preparation of permanent registration certificate of the disputed vehicle is not sufficient to prove this fact. On the other hand, the temporary certificate of registration which is Ex.OP1/3 filed by the answering respondent OP-1 clearly reveals that temporary certificate is valid from 15.2.18 to 14.3.18. and insurance from 15.2.18 to 14.2.19. OP-1 has also filed a copy of order issued by Deptt. Of Transport Govt. of Panjab Dated 27.11.14 which is Ex.OP1/2 in which it is clearly mentioned that in case of transport/commercial vehicle dealer will issue temporary registration certificate for 30 days only, and regular permanent registration no. will be issued by the authority competent to issue .The Temporary registration NO.PB 08 C J 0982 was also found intact on verification from RTA Jallandhar, as its validity was for 30 days. So, after 30 days it became invalid no. for complainant's vehicle. Thus the complainant has failed to produce any such document which could prove that he has paid any amount/fee to OP-1 for the preparation of permanent/ regular registration certificate of the said vehicle.
b) Now let us examine the second issue of Illegal custody of vehicle by OP-2 - As per complainant's own version as mentioned in the complaint that due to false Temp. No. of said vehicle ,vehicle was impounded and FIR was registered by Panjab Police against complainant as a result of which the complainant could not repay instalments. Due to non-payment of instalments, as per the agreement of the loan, the vehicle was surrendered by complainant on 9.11.19 to OP2. Although Complainant denied that he has surrendered the vehicle, it is alleged that OP-2 has illegally took the custody of the said vehicle. In this regard inventory report of materials which was prepared at the time of handing over/surrendering of said disputed vehicle to OP2 was duly signed by the complainant which shows that consent of the complainant was there while surrendering the vehicle to the answering respondent OP-2 . Complainant has again failed to prove this contention by not filing any document to prove his claim of forced custody of said vehicle by OP-2. Where as on the other hand the OP-2 has filed a detailed loan account statement, in which it is clarified by the OP-2 that complainant has failed to pay the instalments and vehicle was surrendered by signing the inventory report by the complainant himself. In the present complaint the complainant has prayed for compensation on account of deficiency in services of OP-1 & OP-2, but he has failed to produce any documents, which could prove the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
8. We have made reliance upon the following judgements of the Hon’ble APEX Court in present complainant.
1. SGS INDIA LTD.. APPELLANTS V/S DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LTD CIVIL APPEAL NO 5759 of 2009
It has been held in above judgement by the Hon’ble Apex Court that onus to prove deficiency in service is on the complainant, who has approached the commission. Without any proof of deficiency, the opposite parties can not be held responsible for deficiency in service.
2 RAVNEET SINGH BAGGA V/S KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES & ANR.
In this judgement Hon’ble Apex Court has held that burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.
9. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that, Be That AS IT MAY, the fact remains that the complainant has miserably failed to produce any material facts which may substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties. Thus the complaint of the complainant is without merit and same is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated
30/09/2024
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh Rajita Sareen Rajesh Bhatia
Member Member President
