Punjab

Sangrur

CC/378/2016

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sangrur Autos Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  378

                                                Instituted on:    03.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       14.12.2016

 

Suresh Kumar son of Girdhari Lal, resident of Guru Nanak Colony,  Gali No.3, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Sangrur Autos Pvt. Ltd. Dhuri Road, Sangrur, Distt Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.             Bajaj Autos Pvt. Ltd. Pune 411035, India through its MD/GM.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Sandip Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri J.S.Sahni,Adv.

For OP No.2             :       Shri Jaspreet Singh,Adv.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Suresh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is the consumer of the Ops by purchasing a Bajaj Scooter from OP number 1 for Rs.21,985/- on 31.12.1997 and at that time there was a scheme that after a period of 18 years they will repay an amount of Rs.25,000/- and also given a cheque bearing number 276692 dated 27.12.2015 for Rs.25,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant on which drawer name was written as Okara Agro Industries Limited, out of their account number 3623 of PNB Branch, Jangpur, New Delhi. Further case of the complainant is that on 30.12.2015, the complainant presented the cheque in question for clearance, but the bank informed the complainant on 15.1.2016 that the cheque has been dishonoured due to reason ‘no such account exist’, for which he sent two different legal notices under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, but the same were received with the remarks ‘left’.   Thereafter the complainant approached OP number 1 for the payment of Rs.25,000/- on 16.1.2016, who assured that they will take up the matter with the head office, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 27.12.2015 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It is denied that there was no such scheme of OP number 1, nor the OP number 1 and 2 have neither given any post dated cheque to the complainant nor has any concern with the issuing authority of the cheque.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. Apart from that legal objections are taken up that the complainant has wrongly impleaded OPs number 1 and 2 as a party and that the complainant is not a  consumer.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, that the Forum has no jurisdiction, that the complainant is baseless and there is no defect in the goods etc. On merits,  the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied. It is stated that the OP manufacturer is a prestigious product, on sale of the same on the prescribed price, would agree or be privy to repay Rs.25,000/- after 18 years and the OP never had any arrangement with the OP number 1 at any point of time nor has the complainant placed any such document on record. Lastly, the OP number 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Bhupesh Kumar, Ex.C-3 bill, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 receipts,  Ex.C-6 copy of cheque, Ex.C-7 copy of voucher, Ex.C-8 memo, Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 copy of postal envelope, Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 copy of postal envelope and Ex.C-13 copy of complaint and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 copy of order dated 4.7.2016 and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he purchased a scooter on 31.12.1997 from the OP number 1 and along with that the OP number 1 gave a cheque bearing number 276692 dated 27.12.2015 for Rs.25,000/- which was drawn in favour of the complainant and drawer name was mentioned as Okara Agro Industries Limited. Now, the grievance of the complainant is that when he presented the cheque to his banker for encashment, then the same was returned  with the remarks “that the cheque is dishonoured due to reason no such account exist”.  On the other hand, the Ops number 1 and 2 have totally denied that they have nothing to do with the cheque in question nor the same was ever issued to the complainant.  The copy of the cheque is on record as Ex.C-6 and a bare perusal of it shows that it was issued by Okara Agro Industries Limited.  It is also on the record that the cheque in question was presented for encashment, but the same was dishonoured due to non existence of the account in the bank  in the name of Okara Agro Industries Limited. The complainant has further alleged that though he sent two legal notices under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act to two different offices of Okara Agro Industries Limited, but the same were received back with the remarks ‘left”.  We may mention that earlier the complainant also had arrayed Okara Agro Industries Limited as OP number 3, but later on 13.6.2016 he gave up OP number 3 because the address of Okara Agro Industries Limited was not available.  The complainant has produced nothing on record to show that the cheque in question was ever issued by the Ops number 1 and 2 at any moment on behalf of the Okara Agro Industries Limited.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to establish his case.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consign ed to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 14, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member