Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/35/2015

Dharmender Rana S/o Om Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rakesh Gupta, MAGMA FINCORP Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Bhardwaj

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                          Complaint No. 35 of 2015.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 28.01.2015  

                                                                                          Date of decision: 17.04.2017.

 

Dharamender Rana aged about 35 years son of Om Pal Singh, R/o Village Rattanpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

        …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Branch Manager) MAGMA FINCORP LTD. Commercial Belt, SCO No.129, 1^st Floor, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                  …Respondent.

 

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:          Sh. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant.

                        Sh. Balraj Rana, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

                       

ORDER

 

1                        The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a car bearing registration No. CH03-L0585 on 25.12.2012 which was sold in open auction by the respondent (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP) and the amount of Rs. 1,52,000/-  was deposited as successful bidder with the OP. After that, a letter dated 04.01.2013 addressed to Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh resident of Saharanpur was handed to the complainant for release the said car to the complainant. From that day the car in question is in the possession of the complainant. The complainant requested the OP many times to give him NOC for transfer of the said vehicle in his name but the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other.

            Further, it has also been mentioned that the car in question previously stands in the name of Aprijata resident of 2058/3, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh who obtained the loan from the OP for purchase of the car make Accent Hyundai but later on she failed to deposit the installments of loan amount. Accordingly, she was declared defaulter by the OP and the car in question was taken into possession and sold to the complainant. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP on 18.09.2014 for “No Objection Certificate” but neither reply was given nor NOC was handed over to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed his written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; the present complaint is filed by the complainant just to evade his legal liability due towards the OP; the complainant has already been supplied all the documents for transfer of vehicle including NOC at the time of sale of the vehicle, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable; this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the vehicle was sold at Chandigarh and all the transactions regarding the vehicle in question also took place at Chandigarh; the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as the complainant purchased the car on 25.12.2012 and the present complaint has been filed after the limitation period of 2 years as prescribed in the CP Act and on merit it has been admitted that the car in question was auctioned on 25.12.2012 in open auction and the amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- was deposited as full bidder with the OP. After that, the OP handed over a letter dated 04.01.2013 addressed to Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh resident of Saharanpur to release the said car to the complainant and from that day the car in question is in the possession of complainant. Rest contents of the complaint have been denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CA and documents such as photo copy of receipt for depositing amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- dated 25.12.2012 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of legal notice as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of postal receipt as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of reminder of legal notice as Annexure C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.                     After setting aside the ex-parte against Op, the counsel for the complainant again tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and photo copy of vehicle release letter dated 04.01.2013 as Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Deepak Kumar Power of Attorney holder of Magma Fincorp Ltd. Ambala as Annexure RW/A and documents such as photo copy of no objection certificate (NOC) as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of driving licence of Dharmender Singh as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter dated 04.01.2013 for releasing the vehicle as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of delivery receipt as Annexure R-4, photo copy of sale agreement as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of election card of complainant as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

8.                     The only version of the complainant is that he purchased the car bearing registration No. CH-03-L0585 on 25.12.2012 in open auction from the OP and paid Rs. 1,52,000/- being successful bidder and after that he requested the OP to issue the NOC but the OP remained failed to issue the same. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that as per record of the Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh the car in question stands in another name i.e. Jagdeep Singh since 15.01.2009 and draw our attention towards verification report issued by Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh and placed on file photo copy of verification report during the course of argument which was ordered to be marked as Annexure C-7. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that no NOC on behalf of said person i.e. Jagdeep Singh had been issued by the Op due to which the complainant could not transfer the vehicle in question in his name. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of complaint.

9.                     Whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued at length that at the time of handing over the vehicle all the relevant papers including NOC was handed over to the complainant and draw our attention towards the photo copy of NOC Annexure R-1 which was issued on 21.02.2013. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that as the OP repossessed the car from Ms. Aprajita  who was defaulter of the OP Company and as per their record car was standing in the name of said Aprajita. so when the car in question was standing in the name of Aprajita then no question arise to issue NOC on behalf of alleged Jagdeep Singh as alleged by the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the auction proceedings had taken place at Chandigarh and also argued that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred as the complainant purchased the car on 25.12.2012 and the present complaint has been filed on 28.01.2015. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. From the perusal of Annex. R-1, it is duly evident that “No Objection Certificate” has been issued by the OP on 21.02.2013 addressed to the Registering Authority, Chandigarh, this fact has not been disclosed by the complainant in his complaint. Even, after placing the photo copy of NOC by the OP Annex. R-1, complainant never tried to rebut the same. The document placed on file by the complainant as Annex. C-7 during the course of argument is not duly proved. Moreover, this document has been allegedly issued on 20.09.2016 whereas the complainant purchased the car in question on 25.12.2012 and the OP Finance Company issued NOC on 21.02.2013 Annex. R-1. We have also perused the sale agreement Annex. R-5 in which the name of Aprajita has been shown as registered owner of the vehicle in question, so, we are of the considered view that it cannot be said that the complainant was not having any knowledge that the car in question was not standing in the name of said Aprajita. Further, it is also not the case of the complainant that at the time of handing over the car in question, the original registration certificate and other relevant papers of the car were also not handed over to him. When the original registration certificate stood in the name of said Aprajita then the version of the complainant that the car in question stands in the name of alleged Jagdeep Singh have no weightage. Even from the other angle also, it was the duty of the complainant to check all the records prior to purchase of the car in question in open auction. Further, this fact has also been not rebutted by the complainant that car in question was not auctioned at Chandigarh. It is also not disputed that the complainant purchased the car on 25.12.2012 and the present complaint has been filed on 28.01.2015 i.e. after a period of 2 years which is also hopelessly time barred as per section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to redress his grievances with the appropriate Forum/ Authority/Court, 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. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court: 17.04.2017

                                   

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT,

                                                                        DCDRF YAMUNANAGAR

 

                                                                                     

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA )     

                                                                         MEMBER.