DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.532 of 10

                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 03.09.2010

                                                  DATE OF ORDER: -26.10.2016

Shri Ramlal son of Shri Bihari Lal, resident of village Lohani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through Naresh Kumar son of Shri Narain Puri, resident of village Lohani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

           ……………Complainant.

VERSUS

Raghu Hyundai, Rohtak Road Bhiwani, through its authorized signatory.

………….. Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

  Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

  Mrs. Sudesh, Member

Present:-      None for the complainant.

          Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a car Cantro GLSF/L from the opposite party through C.D.S. and on that day, the complainant has to pay Rs. 3,12,472/- only.  It is alleged that on the assurance of the OP that as and when the C.D.S. challan would came, the difference amount would be given to the complainant, and on 15.02.2010, the complainant has paid whole amount i.e. Rs. 3,54,000/- and take the delivery of the said car.  It is alleged that the complainant has financed his car from M/s Magma Finance Co. Ltd. and the Finance Company has send a cheque of Rs. 1,70,000/- to the opposite party.  It is alleged that the opposite party has not returned the excessive amount to the complainant.  The complainant visited the office of opposite party many a times and requested to return his excess amount but in spite of the efforts made by him  the OP was not paid the excess amount to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that he also got served a legal notice dated 28.07.2010 but failed to comply with the same. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OP he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, he has to file the present complaint.

2.                  On appearance, OP  filed written statement alleging therein that the delivery challan for a sum of Rs. 312672/- was issued to the complainant, beside this the vehicle was issued also got insured from Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. after paying a sum of Rs. 8339/- as a premium.  It is submitted that the temporary registration certificate was also issued to the complainant by charging the adequate fee.  It is submitted that on the receipt of L.S. order from CSD, the bill was issued for a sum of Rs. 3,29,150/- as per enhanced rate of tax.  It is submitted that the Finance Company has sent a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,60,500/- and after adjustment a sum of Rs. 1,21,885/- was received back by the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3.                OP no. 2 has failed to come present.  Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.11.2013.

4.                 In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-12 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6 alongwith supporting affidavit.

6.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the OP.

7.                This case is pending for arguments since 16.02.2016 and after that this case has been adjourned about 12 times for hearing of arguments in the absence of the complainant or his counsel.  Despite various adjournments nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant to argue the case.  This case is very old case pertaining to the year 2010.  No further adjournment is justified. We have heard the counsel for the OP and proceed to dispose of this case after considering the written arguments of the complainant. 

8.                Learned counsel for OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the excess amount has already been paid to Naresh Kumar special attorney of Ram Lal complainant as detailed in Annexure R-1 vide voucher dated 12.03.2010 for Rs. 45,000/- Annexure R-4, voucher dated 13.03.2010 for Rs. 61885/- Annexure R-5 and voucher dated 01.07.2010 for Rs. 15,000/- Annexure R-6.  Now nothing is due to the complainant from the OP.  He further submitted that Rs. 3374/- has been paid in excess to the complainant, which the complainant is liable to pay to the OP.  He further submitted that the details of the amount charged from the complainant has been specifically mentioned in Para No. 5 of the preliminary objection.

9.                In the light of the pleadings of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record.   No specific affidavit and cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant to controvert the pleadings of the OP regarding the refund of the amount to the complainant as mentioned by the OP in Para No. 5 of his preliminary objection.  Taking into account every aspect of the case, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 26.10.2016.       

                                                                              (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                    President,     

                                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Anamika Gupta)                          (Sudesh)         

      Member.                                  Member.