Haryana

Jind

CC/237/2013

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh A.S. Saini

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 237 of 2013
                            Date of institution:-21.11.2013
                            Date of decision:- 12.8.2016
Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh. Amar Singh r/o village Morkhi, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. 

                                       ...Complainant.
Versus
Raj Motors, Raj Complex Delhi road, Rohtak through its Manager. 
Raj Motors Rohtak road bye pass, Jind through its Manager, Jitender Chima.
                                   …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. K.K. Chahal, Adv.for opposite party No.1.
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
            
Order:-
        In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant  along with opposite party No.2 went to Rohtak  and  purchased TATA Safari EX 4 X2DICOR having Engine 
            Kuldeep Singh Vs. Raj Motors etc.
                       …2…
No.22LDICOR09HXYJ18889, Chassis No. MAT403725CNJ09878 for a sum of Rs.9,29,000/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.555 dated 2.12.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- in cash and remaining amount was financed. The complainant is depositing the financed amount regularly and lastly deposited Rs.62,000/- on account of finance on 11.10.2013. At the time of purchase, the opposite party No.1 has not issued the original bill and has issued only receipt of Rs.3,30,000/- which was paid by him. The complainant visited the opposite parties several times and requested to issue the original bill of the above said vehicle as he wants to get register the vehicle in his name but till today the same has not been issued by the opposite parties. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  issue the original bill of the above said vehicle as well as to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant. 
2.    Pursuant to notice, the opposite party No.1  appeared and filed the written reply agitating that the complainant has got no cause of action  to file the present complaint and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is contended that price of the vehicle was Rs.9,16,119/- plus insurance amount of Rs.37,381/- totaling to Rs.9,53,500/- insead of Rs.9,29,000/- as claimed by the complainant. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- vide receipt No.1494 on 30.11.2012 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.1495 dated 30.11.2012. The complainant got financed his 
            Kuldeep Singh Vs. Raj Motors etc.
                       …3…
vehicle from TATA finance on 26.2.2013, opposite party No.1 received a RTGS from TATA finance of Rs.6,00,350/- on behalf of complainant and total amount deposited by complainant along with TATA Finance comes to Rs.8,32,350/- and he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,11,150/- out of the total price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.9,53,500/-.  The answering opposite party requested to the complainant several times to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,11,150/- but he did not deposit the balance amount and answering opposite party unable to issue him final bill of Rs.9,53,500/-. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with special compensatory cost  is prayed for. 
3.    Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back with the report that he refused to take the summon. Hence, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 3.1.2014.  
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced  his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of  contract details Ex. C-2, copy of repayments Ex. C-3 and  copies of receipt Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh.  Nitin Dass, Manager Ex. OP-1, copy of ledger  Ex. OP-2, copy of tax invoice Ex. OP-3, copy of policy schedule Ex. OP-4 and copies of receipt Ex. OP-5 to Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The grievance of the complainant is that he 
            Kuldeep Singh Vs. Raj Motors etc.
                       …4…
had purchased one TATA Safri from opposite parties and paid the  billed amount  of Rs. 3,30,000/- as margin money vide receipt No.555 dated 2.12.2012 and remaining amount got financed from TATA finance and as such the complainant paid the entire amount of the vehicle in question but the opposite parties have failed to provide the original documents for the registration of the vehicle. 
6.    On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for opposite parties argued that the price of the vehicle was Rs. 9,53,500/- along with insurance amount of Rs.37,381/-. However, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- vide receipt No.1494 and Rs.1,00,000/- vide receipt No.1495 dated 30.11.2012 respectively and an amount of Rs.6,00,350/- has been received from the TATA finance company and as such an amount of Rs.8,32,350/- was received in lieu of the vehicle in question and the complainant is bound to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,11,150/- to the opposite parties. It is further argued that opposite parties have made several requests to the complainant for depositing of the remaining amount but the complainant did not deposit the same so the opposite party unable to issue the final bill/original documents to the complainant. It is further argued that the receipt  No.555 dated 2.12.2012 Ex. C-5 amounting to Rs.3,30,000/- tendered by the complainant is fake one and not issued by the opposite parties. During the course of arguments the opposite parties have tendered another receipt No.555 dated 10.6.2012 which is in the name of one Sh. Suresh Grewal s/o Sh. Om Parkash for a sum of Rs.8198/-.  The counsel for complainant argued that the receipt  bearing No.1494 
            Kuldeep Singh Vs. Raj Motors etc.
                       …5…
and 1495 dated 30.11.2012 Ex.OP-5 and Ex. OP-6 tendered by the opposite parties is fake one and prepared after thought. The question arises before us whether the receipt Ex. C-5, Ex. OP-5 and Ex. OP-6 are fake one or not? We are of the firm view that in the Consumer Forum the case decided in summary procedure. In the present case we cannot say whether the receipt Ex. C-5, Ex. OP-5 and Ex. OP-6 are fake or not in summary procedure and  such  type of cases required elaborate evidence and cannot be decided in summary procedure and as such the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC page 583.  Original documents be returned to the complainant after retaining the photo copy of the same. Copy of order be supplied to the parties under the rule.   File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 12.8.2016
                                              President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

                     Kuldeep Singh Vs. Raj Motors etc.
                    
Present:-    Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. K.K. Chahal, Adv.for opposite party No.1.
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 

                Arguments heard.  To come up on  12.8.2016 for orders.

                                       President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                         9.8.2016

Present:-    Sh. A.S. Saini Adv. for complainant. 
        Sh. K.K. Chahal, Adv.for opposite party No.1.
            Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte. 
 
        Order announced. Vide our separate order of the even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 
                                                                                            President,
            Member            Member                     DCDRF,Jind
                                           12.8.2016

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 

To
                 The Executive Engineer,
PWD B&R
Jind

Subject:         Reservation of  VIP suite.

Sir,
            It is brought to you kind notice that the under signed has joined as president District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind. You are therefore, requested to reserve one VIP suite for two days i.e. 22.6.2016  and 23.6.2016 the confirmation slip may please be issued to the bearer of this letter.
            Thanking You

                                           
                                                                              President 
                                      District Consumer Disputes 
                                           Redressal Forum, Jind