Originally Sh.Pardeep Kumar Sharma had filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) and after his death Smt.Surishta Devi his mother has filed amended title in which she has prayed that opposite parties be directed to handover the vehicle i.e. Scooter (TVS Jupiter) bearing registration No.PB-35T-8176 to her and also to pay the compensatory amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest on account of deficiency in service and mental pain agony suffered by him.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that her son purchased a two wheeler i.e. Scooter (TVS Jupiter) bearing Chassis No.MD626BG41DIN36556 and Engine No.BG4ND1036023, for his personal use. The vehicle was duly registered with the office of DTO, Pathankot vide Registration No.PB-35T-8176. He borrowed a loan of Rs.38,235/- for purchasing two wheeler from opposite parties vide loan agreement no.PNKOTTW1312130003 dated 16.12.2013, as per agreement he was obliged to pay back the loan amount in 24 equated monthly installments @ Rs.2023/- per month. At the time of sanctioning of loan, the opposite party took 24 signed post dated cheques from him drawn at Punjab National Bank, Mirthal Branch He has been regularly paying the monthly installments to opposite party. He has further pleaded that on 20.02.2014, the opposite party no.2 alongwith two unidentified persons came to his residence and disclosed that inadvertently the chassis number of vehicle has not been engraved over the loan documents and their audit department has raised objection to that effect, they further asserted that the inspecting staff of their company wants to physically inspect the vehicle for verification, so they want to take the vehicle of their office at Pathankot and further promise to drop it back in evening. He believed the version of opposite party no.2 to be true and allowed him to take the vehicle to their office but the opposite party no.2 did not turn back till late evening and kept on putting off up him with one or other excuse. Ultimately, on 21.02.2015 he and his mother Smt.Sureshta Devi visited the office of opposite parties and asked them about their unorthodox behaviour, but the opposite party no.2 failed to give any cogent reply rather stated that his loan case is running two installments short, when he asked him to supply the statement of loan account, the opposite party no.2 refused and rather threatened him to pay the total outstanding loan amount or otherwise he will sell the vehicle on as is where is basis. Moreover, the opposite party no.2 insulted him and his mother in and among his office staff. He requested the opposite party no.2 not to commit such like illegalities and further to handover the vehicle to him, but the opposite party no.2 did not pay any heed to his requests and rather asked for an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- for releasing the vehicle, to which he refused. With the abovesaid illegal, arbitrary and improper approach of the opposite parties, he had to suffer mental pain, agony and financial loss, further it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice issued to the opposite party no.1 and 2 had not been received back. Case called several times, but none has come present on their behalf. Therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 26.5.2015 and 13.7.2015.
4. Inexparte evidence Smt.Surishta Devi has tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
6. The complainant has pleaded in her complaint that on 20.02.2014, the opposite party no.2 alongwith two unidentified persons came to his residence and disclosed that inadvertently the chassis number of vehicle has not been engraved over the loan documents and their audit department has raised objection to that effect, they further asserted that the inspecting staff of their company wants to physically inspect the vehicle for verification, so they want to take the vehicle of their office at Pathankot and further promise to drop it back in evening. He believed the version of opposite party no.2 to be true and allowed him to take the vehicle to their office but the opposite party no.2 did not turn back till late evening and kept on putting off up him with one or other excuse. The complainant has placed on file relevant documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and Mark ‘A’ and Mark ‘B’ vide which it was proved that she has paid installments to the opposite party, which proves beyond doubt that the complainant had been paying installments to the opposite party. Her pleading has been supported with her affidavit placed on file as Ex.C1. The opposite party has failed to file any reply and rebut the allegations leveled in the complaint and thus, has impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby allowed and the opposite parties are directed to handover the Scooter (TVS Jupiter) bearing registrationNo.PB-35T-8176 to her. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as consolidated compensation including litigation expenses. Complainant shall remain bound to pay the remaining installments to the opposite parties. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.
7. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
August 26,2015. Member
*MK*
