CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/298/12

          Date of Institution:-    27.07.2012

          Order Reserved on:- 22.03.2024

                    Date of Decision:-      16.05.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ravinder Kumar

S/o Sh. Bhuvnehswar Thakur,

R/o House No. RZ-57A, Arjun Park,

NangliSakrawati,

Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. V D Automobiles (Honda Two Wheelers)

F-637/38 NearRamphalChowk,

Sector-7, Dwarka,

New Delhi – 110075

2. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

D-6 & 7 Om Vihar,

Opp Metro Pillar 715, Over LML,

Uttam Nagar New Delhi - 110059

.…..Opposite Part

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that he has purchased Honda CBR 250R Motorcycle  bearing registration no.DL9SAJ3887 vide invoice dated 28.02.2012 of Rs.1,84,285/- from OP-1.
2. On 07.01.2012, he has visited the showroom of OP-2 where Vikram, Financer of OP-2, told that he needs to pay only Rs.70,000/- as down payment and rest of amount will be financed. He called the said person on 11.01.2012 who told to make down payment of Rs.90,000/- but again he changed his stand to make the down payment of Rs.1,10,000/-. On 12.01.2012, he has made payment of Rs.101421/- for the purchase of the bike. He kept on following but it was told that loan cannot be given and payment has to be made in cash. He discussed with VikasRaina, Manager of OP-1 regarding loan and submitted the amount of Rs.65000/- in cash on 27.02.2012, Rs.9100/- vide cheque no.996966 dated 25.04.2012, Rs.9000/- in EDCdated 30.05.2012, Rs.97421/- by cash on 12.01.2012 and Rs.4000/- in cash on 12.01.2012. He was told by Mr. Raina to collect the RC on 09.03.2012. He kept on visiting the OP-1 to collect RC but in vain upon which a legal notice dated 13.04.2012 was given to the OP to do the needful but in vain. Hence, this complaint.

3. The OP-1 did not put the appearance despite due service and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 19.12.2012.

4. The OP-2 has filed the reply with the averments that there is no consumer relationship between complainant and OP-2 as vehicle was never financed by OP-2. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in question by making payment in cash to OP-1. The breakup of payment made to the OP-1 is a matter of record. OP-2 has received a letter dated nil from OP-1 bearing the subject “Dummy NOC” wherein it was admitted that one vehicle of model CBR 250R in the name of complainant has been sold in which HP in the name of OP-2 has been marked and request is made to issue NOC. The NOC dated 11.07.2012 was issued without any delay. OP-2 has no objection in cancelation of endorsement.

5. The complainant has filed his rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

6. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

7. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents namely invoiceEx.CW1/1, payment receipts Ex.CW1/2 and copy of RC Ex.CW1/3.

8. The OP-2 has filed the affidavit of Sh.Gajender Singh, Legal officer, in evidence and corroborated the version of written statement.

9. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant as no one has turned up from OP to address the arguments and perused the entire material on record.

10. The perusal of the record shows that complainant has purchased the motorcycle from OP-1 which has issued invoice Ex.CW1/1 for a sum of Rs.1,84,285/-. The complainant has given a sum of Rs.97421/- on 12.01.2012, Rs.65,000/- on 27.02.2012, Rs.9100/- on 25.04.2012, Rs.9000/- through EDC on 30.05.2012. The receipts are annexed with the complaint and evidence. A sum of Rs.4000/- was allegedly paid in cash on 12.01.2012. All this shows that a sum of Rs.184521/- has been paid by the complainant to the OP-1 which is more than the amount of sale price of the vehicle shown in the invoice Ex.CW1/1.

11. The reply and evidence of OP-2 shows that OP-2 has not financed the vehicle in question though a letter with subject “Dummy NOC”was received from OP-1 that they have marked HP on the sale of vehicle bearing No.DL9SAJ3887 to the complainant and request was made to issue NOC. OP-2 has issued NOC and there is no objection from the OP-2 for the removal of endorsement of hypothecation.

12. The OP-1 has not come forward to contest the complaint. OP-1 has allegedly received the entire payment from the complainant which is apparent from the receipts on record as well as from the evidence led by the complainant. OP-2 has not financed the vehicle in question even though a letter with subject dummy NOC was written by OP-1 to OP-2 that HP has been marked on the vehicle in question. The OP-2 has issued the NOC even though vehicle in question was not financed. The OP-1 is the best person to explain why this letter was written to OP-2 when vehicle in question was not financed by OP-2.

13. The OP-1 should have given the NOC to the complainant and got the endorsement of HP removed from the RC which was not done. The OP-1 has not only indulged in the unfair trade practice but this also tantamount to deficiency in service.

14. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP-1 shall give NOC to the complainant and got the entry of HP removed from the RC.

15. The act and conduct of OP-1 has caused mental harassment to the complainant which led to the filing of this complaint. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs.15,000/- for litigation expenses from OP-1. The OP-1 is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @7% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment, agony and litigation charges i.e. from the date of order till its realization.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 16.05.2024.