Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/48/2015

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Relaince Capital LTD & others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Dharminder Singh

24 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 2015

                                           Date of institution : 08/05/2015                                                  Date of decision    : 24.02.2016

Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh resident of Khalsa Colony, Near Jyoti Saroop Morh, Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1.         Gurpreet Singh, Manager Collection of Reliance Capital  Limited, SCO 10 & 11, 6^th & 7^th Floor, Froze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001.

2.         Ramandeep Singh, Manager of Reliance Capital Limited, SCO 10 & 11, 6^th & 7^th Floor, Froze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001.

3.         Inderjit Singh, Sale Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. C/o Show Room, G.T.Road, Opp. Kohli Tyres, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.         

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                              

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                   Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                             Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                                                    

Present :  Sh.D.S.Lamba, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                   Sh. Vinay Sood, Adv.Cl for OPs No. 1 & 2.                                      Sh. N.S.Tiwana, Adv.Cl. for OP No.3.

ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh resident of Khalsa Colony, Near Jyoti Saroop Morh, Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a new Mahindera Maxico (Lower Body) vehicle bearing registration No.PB-23-M-4110 from OP No.3 and got financed the same from OPs No. 2 & 3 for the amount of Rs.3,18,000/- and EMI is settled as Rs.6,700/-p.m. The complainant deposited Rs. 50,000/- at the time of purchase of the vehicle and the OPs got signatures of complainant on some blank papers. The complainant regularly paid the installments till 17.06.2013 and has not paid the remaining installments as he found that year of manufacture of the vehicle was 2012 instead of 2013. The OPs delivered an old vehicle to the complainant, which is deficiency in service on their part. Thereafter, the OPs forcibly took the possession of the vehicle from the house of the complainant. The complainant filed an application before the S.S.P. Fatehgarh Sahib on 22.02.2014, where the OPs promised to settle the matter and asked him to come at their office in the Month of January 2015. Accordingly, the complainant visited OP No.3 but they again asked him to come after the end of financial year 2015. Thereafter the OPs totally refused to listen the complainant. The complainant is ready to pay the installments but the OPs bent upon to cause illegal and wrongful loss to the complainant, which amounts to gross negligence, deficiency in service, carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to return the vehicle in question to the complainant or to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as loss of vehicle and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
3.           The complaint is contested by the OPs. OPs No.1 and 2 filed joint written reply in which they raised preliminary objection, inter alia, that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties as OPs No. 1 and 2 are employees of reliance capital limited and the said company has not been made a party to the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint they stated that they are not, in any manner, concerned with the sale of the vehicle in question. There is no reference of OP No.1 in the whole transaction and OP No.2 is an individual employee of the company and has no concern with granting of loans in his personal capacity. The possession of vehicle is not with OPs No.1 and 2. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.           In reply to the complaint OP No.3 stated that he neither took the possession of the vehicle in question nor he has any concern or connection with the same. He had only to deal with the sale of the vehicle not with the finance or recovery and as such there is no deficiency in service on his part. After denying the other averments made in the complaint he prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
5.           In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence attested copies of documents i.e RC Ex. C-1, retail invoice Ex. C-2, payment receipt Ex. C-3, application to SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib Ex. C-4, insurance policy Ex. C-5 and affidavit of complainant Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No. 1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Gurpreet Singh Ex. OP1/1, affidavit of Ramandeep Singh Ex. OP2/2 and closed the evidence. OP No.3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Inderjit Singh Ex. OP3/1, certified copy of salary statement Ex. OP3/2 and closed the evidence.
6.           The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present complaint is that the OPs had taken the possession of the vehicle in dispute by use of force and by illegal manner. He stated that the matter was also reported to the police authorities as evident from Ex.C-4, thereafter, the OPs compromised the matter and never stood by the same. The ld. counsel argued that the complainant is ready and willing to pay the installments and the OPs be asked to give the possession of the said vehicle to the complainant again. He argued that it is well established from the act and conduct of the OPs that they have intentionally committed deficiency in services.
7.           On the other hand the ld. counsel for the Ops has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Ops are made party in their personal capacity. He stated that it was the company, who had financed the said vehicle and on the directions of the Company the OPs acted as per law. The ld. counsel argued that complex facts are involved in the present case, which cannot be decided in a summary manner, thus the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.
8.            After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by them and oral as well as written submissions, we are of the view that in the present complaint complicated facts are involved, which require elaborate evidence for adjudication of the same. We are of the opinion that the present case cannot be adjudicated upon in a summary manner. The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in case of Savitri Devi Vs Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport,2015(3) CLT 415(PB) has observed  that “where the matter cannot be  adjudicated without recording elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses, the complainant be directed to approach competent civil court to seek redressal of her grievance”. We may further in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed where complicated questions of law and facts are involved, Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion. We feel in the present case also, complicated questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum.  
9.           Accordingly in view of the aforementioned discussion and the judgment, we are of the opinion that in the present case also elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses is required for proper adjudication of the case. Thus we would not like to go into the merits of the case. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with liberty to the complainant to approach the appropriate Court of law, in case he wishes to prove or lead voluminous evidence and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC)  for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. Parties to bear their own cost.
10.   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 15.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:24.02.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)                          President

 

(Veena Chahal)                        Member

 

                                       (A.B.Aggarwal)                       Member