JUDGEMENT
(Delivered on 23 rd day of March 2011)
(As per Ajit Kumar A.Jain, Honorable Member )
The Complainant filed this complaint against Opposite Parties seeking various reliefs as per prayer clause :-
(1) Complainant’s case in short is that he wanted to purchase Tata Indica Vista Terra Car, so he booked this car with O.P.No.2 at Gondia Office by paying rs.60,000/- (Rs. Sixty Thousands) to O.P.No.2 on dt. 30.11.2009. Then he paid Rs.26,000/- (Rs. Twenty Six Thousands on dt. 4.12.2009 . Then, he paid Rs.3,34,078/- (Rs. Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Seventy Eight) to branch office of O.P.No.2 by D.D.No. 010783 of dt. 1.12.2009 drawn on Bank of India Amgaon branch i.e. total Rs.4,20,078/-(Rs.Four Lacs Twenty Thousands Seventy Eight Only) to O.P. handed over the required car bearing Chassis No. MAT-6085319-PJ-81757 and Engine No. 475/DT/4 J.Q.Z.P.97275 on dt. 4-12-2009. O.P.No.1 issued on dt.13-1-2010 tax invoice of grand total amount of Rs.3,72,567/- (Rs. Threee Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Seven only) O.P. paid the insurance amount Rs.13,706/- and complainant paid R.T.O. Tax of Rs.26,380/- (Rs. Twenty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Only).
(2) Before purchasing the car complainant assured by the O.P's that there is company discount of Rs.24,831/- and there is another discount of Rs.5000/- to old car owner, as complainant was owner of Maroti 800 Car. Thus complainant was assured that he will get the benefit of Rs.29,831/- (Rs. Twenty Nine Thousand , Eight Hundred and Thirty One only). Thus on purchase of aforesaid car the O.P. were entitled to receive amount of Rs.3,72,567/- as price of the car, Rs. 13,706/- insurance charges total Rs.3,86,273/-. On the other hand complainant paid to O.P`s total Rs.4,20,078/- which is in excess as compared to aforesaid amount of Rs.3,86,273/- by the difference of Rs.33,805/-. The O.P`s also did not provide to the complainant the amount of discount as agreed of amount of Rs.29,831/- . So the complainant is entitled to get back the total amount of Rs.63,636/- from O.p`s but O.P. failed to pay this amount to complainant .
(3) Complainant prayed to direct O.P.for refund of Rs.63,636/- and Rs.20,000/- claimed towards mental and physical agony and also Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of proceedings. (Exh.1)
(4) In response to notice u/s 13 of C.P. Act, 1986, O.P`s appeared and filed their reply (Exh.11)and O.P. denied all allegations. O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint for misjoinder of parties. O.P. submits that as per the contentions of the complaint in the entire complaint the alleged receipt were issued by Mr. Subhashish Mukherjee and hence he should have been made necessary party to the present complaint. So present complaint needs to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.
(5) O.P. Submitted that when the transaction was done in respect of sale of car to the complainant Mr. Manindra Pashine was not the Branch Manager of Gondia Branch. So this complaint is liable for dismissed for want of misjoinder of party. O.P. denied in specific that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- in cash dt.30-11-2009 to O.P.No.2 O.P. also denied in specific that the complainant again paid an amount of Rs.26,000/- to O.P. on 4-12-2009 in cash. O.P. further submitted that the receipts filed by the complainant , it is revealed that both the receipts are having same number i.e. “19271” . O.P. further submitted that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- on 28-11-2009 and Rs.24600/- on 4-12-2009 in cash and Rs.3,34,078/- vide D.d.No. 010783 dated 1-12-2009. Rs.95 towards short amount and Rs.4425/- towards extended warranty was debited to the account of Mr.Mukherji who is that time Branch Manager. O.P. submitted that amount rs.4425/- was not the part of deal. Due to request of complainant the amount of Rs.4425/- was adjusted in accident invoice of the complainant on 26-2-2010. Thus O.P. has received Rs.3,63,773/- from the complainant and O.P. denied that the complainant paid an amount of rs. 4,20,078/- to the Opposite parties. The O.P. has given discount to the complainant on insurance octroi, loyalty welcome bonus and after deducting the amount of discount , O.P. received only Rs.3,63,777/- from complainant. O.P. agreed that complainant paid Rs.26,380/- towards R.T.O. charges.
6 O.P submits that the entire claim of the complainant is denied as same is being filed on the basis of false and fabricated document on record. O.P. further submits that on the basis of false and bogus documents complainant misguide this Forum. The prayer clause is denied by O.P. in view of the submission made in foregoing paras. O.P. further submits that the complainant is asking for an amount for which he is not entitled.
7 O.P. further submitted that complaint filed by complainant is false, baseless, bogus and same is being filed only with the sole intention to extract money from O.P`s. O.P. submitted that when the complainant was aware about the price of vehicle. Discounts. R.T.O. charges etc. prior to purchase of vehicle than for what reasons he has paid the alleged excess amount to the manager of O.P. which itself shows the complainant is trying to encash the situation by producing false and fabricated receipts on record and hence the entire complaint is a bogus one and hence the same is liable to be dismissed by saddling heavy cost on the complainant .
(8) On verifying all the records and hearing arguments of both the sides only point arise for our consideration whether complainant is entitled for any relief as per prayer clause and our finding is in `Negative` due to following reasons:-
REASONS
(9) Complainant failed to prove that he has paid Rs.60,000/- on 30-11-2009 to the O.P.No.2 . At the time of this transaction O.P.No.2 is not the Manager of O.P.No.1 at Gondia Branch . If he has paid Rs.60,000/- amount to Mr. Mukharjee who was Manager at that time on dt.30-11-2009 then complainant has to make Mr. Mukharjee a party to the complaint.
10 Complainant submits that he has paid Rs.26,000/- in cash to Mr. Mukharjee, Manager of Gondia Branch on dt.4.12.2009. But complainant has not made the party to Mr. Mukharjeewho has received this disputed amount. The reason best known to the complainant.
(11) The receipts document No. 1 & 2 filed by the complainant on record are bogus and not reliable because in both the receipts bear same number “19271” which is not possible for any dealer to issue this type of bogus receipt.
(12) That, the complainant has claimed recovery of excess amount allegedly paid by him to the O.P. which does not come within the purview of the definition of deficiency in service as provided in the Consumer Protection Act. As such the complainant instead of approaching to this Forum should have filed civil suit for recovery of the amount alleged to have been paid in excess to the O.P. further more, the complainant involves allegations of excess payment of amount to O.P. which has been denied by the O.P. contending the documents 1 & 2 filed by the complainant as forged and fabricated. Thus, the controversy in the case requires adducing evidence and proof of documents which can be done before the Civil court only.
For the reasons stated above we pass the following order:-
ORDER
(1) Complaint is dismissed and complainant is at liberty to approach to the Civil Court for redressal.
(2) No order as to cost.
(Ajit Kumar Jain) (Smt. Alka Patel) (Smt .P.B.Potdukhe)
Member Member President
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Judicial Forum, Gondia.
