DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                    Complaint no. 295       

                                                                     Instituted on:  11.07.2018                                                                        

                                                                     Decided on:    22.02.2019

Nancy Garg aged 35 years W/O Shri Atul Garg, R/O H. No. 271, W.No.16/B, Near State Bank of Patiala, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur 148 024.

                                                …. Complainant  

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 148 001.  

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. PARTY No.1         :                  Exparte                         

FOR OPP.PARTY NO.2         :                  Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.3&4          :         Shri Amit Jain, Advocate                          

Quorum

Vinod Kumar Gulati,  Presiding Member

Mrs. Manisha, Member

ORDER:  

Vinod Kumar Gulati,  Presiding Member

1.             Smt. Nancy Garg, 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 the 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 became member of said scheme vide membership no.88 of Group D and paid 19 monthly instalments  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.29,450/- as consideration at Dhuri and issued receipts. The OPs must have refunded the  said paid amount of Rs.29,450/- to the complainant along with interest but they failed to refund  the said amount despite repeated requests. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.29,450/- along with interest @18% per annum and/or to deliver vehicle adjusting already paid amount and interest thereupon on it,

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 OP no. 1 despite service. As such OP no. 1 was proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2. On merits,  it is stated that the OP number 2 has no knowledge that the complainant was the member of the scheme or not. It is stated that the OP has no possessed any record regarding the membership of the complainant and record, if any, is in the possession of OP number 3 and 4. The OP has not received any amount from the complainant, then the question of OP failed to receive further monthly instalments does not arise at all. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             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.

5.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP no.2 has produced  Ex.OP2/1  to OP2/4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.3 and 4 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OPs 3&4/1 and other documents  Ex.OP3&4/2 to Ex.OP3&4/3 and closed evidence.

6.             It is the case of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.29,450/- to OPs against 19 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.  Thus, the OPs  are liable to  refund the amount along with 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. The OPs number 3 and 4 have produced on record letter dated 18.7.2018, which shows that TVS Motors actually suspended the dealership of the Ops w.e.f. 1.10.2018. Learned counsel for the OPs number 3 & 4 has further submitted that they never refused to settle the matter with the complainant.  It means that the OPs have admitted deposit of Rs.29,450/- by the complainant with them and their liability to refund the same. None of the Ops replied to the legal notice sent by the complainant on 13.4.2018. The complainant has vehemently denied that the complaint being pre mature or violation of terms of the scheme by the complainant or default on the part of the complainant in any term. Further the complainant during the oral arguments submitted that the Ops stopped the scheme for itself and failed to receive further monthly instalments alleging the closer of the scheme by the Ops wrongly. The Ops did not rebut the claim of the complainant.  There is no fault of theirs exists. Further the Ops during the oral arguments time and again emphasized on the Terms and Conditions specifically at serial number 6 of the scheme that in case of member not giving three instalments to the Ops then in that case his membership would be closed without giving any prior notice. But the complainant argued that they had regularly paid 19 number instalments of Rs.1550/- each to the Ops, as such the Ops do not have any right to forfeit the amounts deposited with them as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. Further, 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. Further, 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 depositors 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.

7.             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 deposited amount of Rs.29,450/- along with interest.   Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.29,450/- to the complainant along with 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.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 45 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.               

                Pronounced.

                February 22, 2019.

                                                                  ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                     Presiding Member

                                                                        (Manisha)

                                                                           Member