Delhi

East Delhi

CC/979/2013

RAM LAKHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJIV RAJ MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 979/13

 

Shri Ram Naresh Singh

S/o Shri Ram Lakhan Singh

R/o A-119, Ground Floor, Chander Vihar

Mandawali, New Delhi – 110 092                                             ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Rajiv Raj Motors

193, Patpar Ganj Industrial Area

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 08.11.2013

Judgment Reserved for : 14.07.2016

Judgment Passed on : 15.07.2016

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Ram Naresh Singh has filed a complaint against M/s. Rajiv Raj Motors, praying for refund of excess amount, compensation of Rs. 90,000/- on account of harassment, mental agony and pain, and Rs. 5,000/-  as litigation cost.

2.        The facts in brief are that Shri Ram Naresh Singh (complainant) booked a TSR auto on 01.12.2012 and deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- vide booking no. 051 with M/s. Rajiv Raj Motors (OP).  It has been stated that at the time of booking, OP informed the complainant that the cost of the auto will be Rs. 1,70,000/- and after sometime OP’s officer told the complainant that the cost of the auto will be Rs. 1,76,500/-.  The complainant made all the payment i.e. a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 09.02.2013 vide receipt no. 1370 and Rs. 71,500/- vide receipt no. 1371 of dated 09.02.2013.  He again paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 13,400/.   He was assured that permit will be given to him within 13-15 days.  It is stated that OP did not provide the permit though he was given the delivery in the month of February 2013 and RC in the month of May 2013.  Due to non-providing of permit, the complainant could not use the auto.  Thus, it has been stated that it was a clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP.  He has prayed for refund of excess amount, direction to provide the permit; Rs. 90,000/- compensation on account of harassment, mental pain and agony alongwith Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation.

3.        In the written statement, OP has stated that officer of the OP did not tell the price of the vehicle as Rs. 1,70,000/-.  It has also been denied that permit was to be provided within 13-15 days.  It has further been stated that the complainant was told that it will come within a month if all the documents were made available.  It is also stated that when officials of the respondent progressed about the permit of the complainant, they came to know that the police verification report/badge verification report was required which was conveyed to the complainant. 

4.        In support of his case, the complainant has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  Though, he has not got exhibited the documents in his testimony, but the documents which has been filed alongwith the complaint are the receipts issued to him from time to time by OP showing the amount paid towards purchase of auto. 

In defence, OP has examind Shri Rajiv Tyagi, who has stated that the complainant was sold auto for a sum of Rs. 1,76,500/-.  He has further stated that the complainant was informed that it takes about a month, if the documents required were complete.  He has further stated that when the permit was applied for the complainant, the requirement of badge verification/police verification report was required, which was informed to the complainant to get it done as early as possible, but the complainant did not get it done. 

5.        We have heard the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It is admitted case of both the parties that the complainant purchased the auto from OP.  However, the only dispute is with regard to non-providing of permit.  It is the case of the complainant that he was assured to have the permit within a period of 13-15 days from the date of purchase of the auto.  However, the case of the OP has been that the complainant was informed about issuance of permit within a period of one month provided he submits the documents such as badge verification/police verification report.  From the testimony of the complainant, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant has submitted badge verification/police verification to the OP.  In the absence of that, it cannot be said that there was deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Thus, the testimony of OP has to be relied upon. 

6.        In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and the complaint deserves its dismissal.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed.    

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member                 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

President