Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/265

CENTRAL MOTORS - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAIYAD FAROOKH - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 27.01.2016 passed in C.C.No.143/2014 by District Commission,Burhanpur)

 

CENTRAL MOTORS, BURHANPUR ROAD, KHANWA

AND ANOTHER                                                                                               …                 APPELLANTS

 

           Versus

 

SYED FAROOQ AND ANOTHER.                                                                    …             RESPONDENTS.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :     ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :     MEMBER

     

                                      O R D E R

22.07.2024

 

      Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.

      None for the respondent no.1/complainant.

      Shri R. B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                        This appeal by the opposite party no.1 and 2/appellants is directed against the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Burhanpur (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.143/2014 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 and directed the opposite party no.1 & 2/appellants to provide registration of the subject vehicle within one month to the complainant after getting it registered with the RTO. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- is also directed to

-2-

be paid within 30 days failing which interest @ 12% p.a. will be payable on the aforesaid amount. Costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded. 

2.                Learned counsel for appellants argued that the District Commission did not consider this aspect that it was in the knowledge of the  complainant that he had to pay Rs.40,144/- towards registration but he paid only Rs.17,610/- remaining amount of Rs.22,534/- is still to be paid by the complainant and thereafter the registration process will start. He therefore prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside on this ground alone.

3.                None appeared for the respondent no.1/complainant.

4.                Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3/respondent no.2 argued that the opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer of the subject vehicle and the dispute is between the complainant and the dealer the opposite party no.1 and 2. The manufacturer has nothing to do with this.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order.

6.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order and the record of the District Commission, we

-3-

find that the complainant had purchased Thar Jeep from the Burhanpur branch of the opposite party no.1 and 2 on 08.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.4,87,776/-. It is submitted that at the time of purchase the opposite party no.1 and 2 assured to provide registration book after getting the vehicle registered. It is submitted by him that he paid total Rs.5,48,967/- out of which discount of Rs.8,967/- was given. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2 gave cover note for a sum of Rs.15,900/- whereas the opposite party no.2 charged Rs.19,047/- towards insurance. Similarly, they charged Rs.40,144/- whereas registration charges are Rs.37,500/-.

7.                On going through the record we find that C-1 is the invoice dated 08.09.2014 for a sum of Rs.4,87,776/- by which the subject vehicle was sold to the complainant. However, in the said invoice there is no mention about registration charges and insurance charges. C-2 is cover note dated 08.09.2014 showing IDV Rs.4,87,776/-.  We find that C-7 is quotation dated 09.09.2014 showing the price of vehicle on road Rs.5,40,000/-.  The said quotation is dated 09.09.2014 i.e. after one day oif purchase of vehicle.

8.                We find that the District Commission relying on the said document C-7 dated 09.09.2014 came to the conclusion that in the said

-4-

quotation  after striking the column of Road Tax, Insurance, Accessories, Extended Warranty and Others on road price is shown as Rs.5,40,000/-. It means that the complainant needs not to pay any charges for the registration and insurance as all the charges included in Rs.5,40,000/- already paid by the complainant to the opposite party no.1 and 2.

9.                Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1 and 2/appellants argued that C-1 is invoice dated 08.09.2014 by which they sold the subject vehicle to the complainant for a sum of Rs. Rs.4,87,776/- and submit that the document C-7 dated 09.09.2014 showing on road price Rs.5,40,000/- is forged one and they were never issued any such document as there is no mention about the vehicle whereas in C-1 there is specific mention of vehicle Thar. Since the complainant/respondent no.1 is not present therefore without hearing the complainant a concrete finding on the said document C-7 cannot be given.

10.              Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discrepancy for fair and just decision of the case in our considered opinion parties be given equal opportunity to contest the matter on this issue. Thus, we are of a considered view that the case deserves to be decided afresh on its merits. The matter is therefore remanded to the District Commission for decision

-5-

afresh. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the District Commission.

11.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 02.09.2024 and shall co-operate for early decision in the matter.

12.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and decide the complaint. If the parties will not co-operate, the District Commission shall decide the case after examining the documents filed on record.  It is made clear that observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission while deciding the complaint.

13.              The District Commission shall decide the complaint in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

14.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

 

                 (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

              Acting President                         Member