DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 236 of 10.6.2016

                                      Decided on:        26.7.2017

Rakesh Kumar s/o Gurpartap Singh # 81, Ajit Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

RSG Atwal Filling Station Complex, Urban Estate, Phase-2, Patiala through its Manager/Authorized signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.J.S.Grewal,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                                Sh.Rakesh Kumar, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding a valid driving licence bearing No.PB-1120130139946 got issued by him from the licensing authority, Patiala having validity upto 29.6.2013 for LMV/MCWG .With a view to purchase a auto rickshaw on installments, for earning his livelihood, he contacted the OP who took his signatures on some plain papers, blank form and on other documents advising him that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-as down payment  with the promise that it will itself arrange for the financé of the auto either from a bank or from some financial institution. The OP delivered the vehicle vide invoice No.243 dated 4.5.2015 for Rs.1,38,170/- with the temporary No.PB-11M(T)8770 valid from 6.5.2015 to 5.6.2015. The complainant also paid Rs.40,100/- in addition to the payment of Rs.30,000/-as down payment. The insurance of the vehicle was also got done for an amount of Rs.5855/-The OP did not intimate about the EMI of the loan amount, sanctioned to him and also did not deliver the RC of the said vehicle. In the absence of the RC, he was unable to use the vehicle, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and caused mental agony and physical harassment to him.Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the OP to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.20,000/-as costs of the complaint.

3.                On being put to notice one Mr.Raman Malhotra, Manager appeared on behalf of the OP and took adjournment for filing written version. Thereafter none appeared on behalf of the OP nor written version filed.The OP was thus proceeded against exparte.

4.                In ex-parte evidence, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA sworn affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, gone through the written arguments, filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.                From invoice No. 245, Ex.C2, it is evident that on 4.5.2015, OP  sold  auto rickshaw in question to the complainant, for a sum of Rs.1,38,170/-. The  plea of the complainant is that at the time of purchase of the said auto rickshaw, he paid Rs.30,000/- to the OP as down payment and the OP promised him that remaining  would be arranged by it from some financial institute / bank and also to deliver the R.C. of the said vehicle. He paid, in total a sum of Rs.40,100/- to the OP in installment as is evident from Exs.C3 to C9, in addition to Rs.30,000/-. But the OP did not provided him the R.C. of the vehicle in question till yet, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.                 It may be stated that no document has been placed on record by the complainant to show that he had paid  Rs.30,000/-, as down payment  to the OP for the purchase of the vehicle in question. Even, he has not placed on record any  document to show that the OP has ever promised him that it will arrange the remaining amount from some financial institute/bank. Even from the receipts Exs.C4 to C10, vide which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.41,100/- to the OP, it is not evident that this amount has been paid by the complainant as loan installments. Not only this, the complainant has not placed on record any document to show that it had paid the requisite charges for registration of the  vehicle  in question to the OP and has not placed on record any document whereby the OP has promised him to deliver the R.C. of the vehicle  in question. Be that as it may, we  hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case by  placing on record any cogent and convincing evidence and the complaint filed by him is devoid of merit. Consequently,  we dismiss the  same without any order as to costs.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:26.7.2017       

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER