Gagandeep Goyal filed a consumer case on 07 Jun 2018 against Tulsi Motors in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/19/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Jun 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 19
Instituted on: 16.01.2018
Decided on: 07.06.2018
…. Complainants.
Versus
1. Tulsi Motors through its authorized person, Kakerwal- Benra Road, Near Mata Mansa Devi Mandir, Dhuri (Earlier Near Malerkotla Road, Modern Technical College Dhuri), now through Shiv Kumar son of Dharampal being authorized person c/o Shiv Karyana Store, Gali No.5, Khalifa Bagh Sangrur.
2. Jagdish Kumar son of Shobh Raj c/o Arora Emporium, Sunami Gate, Near Patrol Pump, Sangrur ( Authorized Representative of Tulsi Motors Dhuri);
3. Sanjeev Bajaj son of Ram Lal c/o The Army School, Sangrur ( Authorized Representative of Tulsi Motors, Dhuri):
4. Shiv Kumar son of Dharampal c/o Shiv Karyana Store, Gali No.5, Khalifa Bagh Sangrur (Authorized Representative of Tulsi Motors, Dhuri).
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri Nem Kumar Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&2 : Exparte
FOR OPP. PARTIES No.3&4 : Shri S.S.Mann, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Gagandeep Goyal and Shifali Goyal complainants have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that OPs launched a sale promotion scheme consisting of various members for period of 36 months as per which member had to pay 36 equal monthly installment of Rs.1550/- per month and complainant number 1 became member of said scheme in the name of complainant number 2 vide membership no.97 of Group D and paid 20 monthly installments of Rs.1550/-per month. Thereafter the Ops failed to receive further monthly installments alleging closure of scheme by OPs wrongly. The OPs thus received total amount of Rs.31000/- as consideration at Dhuri and issued receipts. The OPs must have refunded the said paid amount of Rs.31000/-to the complainant alongwith interest but they failed to refund the said amount despite repeated requests except Rs.10,000/-as part repayment on 30.03.2017. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to pay Rs.21000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from 06.07.2015 till payment or to deliver vehicle adjusting already paid amount i.e. Rs.21000/- ,
ii) OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. Notices were sent to the OPs but none has appeared for the OPs no. 1 and 2 despite service. As such OPs no. 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte.
3. In reply filed by the OPs no.3 and 4, it has been stated that Op no.2 was looking after the account of OP no.1 who made embezzlement in the accounts and showed loss to OP no.1 due to which TVS motors suspended the dealership of the OPs and stopped to provide the vehicles to the OPs due to which the OPs were constrained to stop the said scheme. It is submitted that the matter was settled with most of the members of the group in view of the financial crises but the complainant and few other members refused to settle the matter. It is also submitted that the complainant was called to settle the matter, but he refused to do the same.
4. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.3 and 4 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OPs 3&4/1 and closed evidence.
5. It is the case of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.31000/- to OPs against 20 monthly installments of Rs.1550/- per month and OPs had promised to deliver the vehicle or adjustment of its price at the end of scheme but they discontinued the scheme. The OPs had repaid an amount Rs.10,000/- only on 30.03.2017. Thus, the OPs are liable to refund the amount alongwith interest. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that Op no.2 was looking after the account of OP no.1 who made embezzlement in the accounts and showed loss to OP no.1 due to which TVS motors suspended the dealership of the OPs and stopped to provide the vehicles to the OPs due to which the OPs were constrained to stop the said scheme. Surprisingly, the OPs have not produced on record any document/ letter which shows that TVS Motors actually suspended the dealership of the OPs. Learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the matter was settled with most of the members of the group in view of the financial crises but the complainant and few other members refused to settle the matter. It means that the OPs have admitted deposit of Rs.31000/- by the complainant with them and their liability to refund the same. The complainants have themselves stated that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been paid by the OPs as part payment. Learned counsel for the OPs has produced copy of judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission titled as Director, Command Area Vs. Nemichand Gupta, First Appeal No.889 of 2016, Vipan Kumar Vs. M/s Aerovision Electronics, First Appeal No.1512 of 2010 of Hon'ble State Commission Punjab and another copy of judgment of Madhya Pradesh State Commission namely Smt. Sushma Dosaj Vs. Shakha Prabanhak, First Appeal No.1733/2011. We have perused the above said copy of judgment of First Appeal No.889 of 2016 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the complainant is a consumer and this judgment is in favour of complainant. We have also perused the ruling Vipan Kumar Vs. Aerovision Electronics, First Appeal No.1512 of 2010 wherein the complaint was dismissed on ground of non-proving of case by complainant as complainant failed to place on record his own affidavit. The prayer was meant qua unfair trade practice restraining opposite parties to repeat unfair trade practice and complainant failed to lead evidence. However, in present case, the complainant has placed his own affidavit supported with documents and facts pleaded by complainant have been admitted by the opposite parties. Another ruling namely Sushma Dosaj Vs. Shakha Prabanhak , First Appeal No.1733/2011, the consumer dispute was pertaining to lucky draw of prize coupon and not pertaining to assured performance. In that case, the counsel for respondent admitted the complainant to be a consumer qua the investment of money in scheme and the matter pertaining to gift coupon qua which no consideration was paid and complainant was not held consumer. The case in hand pertains to payment of consideration and refunding of the amount and not qua nay Prize Coupon and the subject matter pertains to payment of money under scheme and non-repayment of same despite closure of scheme. In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant has cited a ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as Brij Pal Sharma Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, 2005 (3) CLT 519 wherein it was held that grant of interest @18% per annum to depositers by way of damages and compensation quite justified. It was further held that when private interest is pitted against the public interest, the latter must prevail over the former.
6. From the above discussion we find that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs and OPs are deficient in service for non-refunding the balance deposited amount of Rs.21000/- alongwith interest. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.21000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. We further direct OPs to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- on account of mental pain agony, harassment and also to Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
June 7, 2018
( Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.