Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he visited showroom of O.P.No.1 on 12th September, 2011 to buy a car for his personal use. He selected one Flash Red Colour car and on rode price of Rs.10,38,858/- including insurance charges was told. The complainant requested to deduct the cost of insurance, registration and service charges and the price was revised to Rs.9,37,352/-. The deal was fixed for Rs.9,37,352/- and the complainant paid earnest amount of Rs.75,000/- by cheque. The complainant went to his banker alongwith one Mr.Punjabi of O.P.No.1 to discuss the vehicle loan. Later on, the complainant decided to purchase the car by paying amount from his account. Mr.Punjabi, returned the cheque of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant and gave instructions to the bank manager for transferring the amount of Rs.9,37,352/- via R.T.G.S. to the O.P.No.1. The complainant asked him to give Chasis Number and Engine Number for the insurance purpose. The complainant was told that only on payment of entire consideration amount, Chasis Number and Engine Number can be given. The entire amount was disbursed to the O.P.No.1. The complainant also handed over cheque towards insurance policy. The O.P.No.1supplied Engine Number and Chasis Number to the complainant’s banker with further demand of Rs.33,622/-. There was no such demand earlier. Therefore, the complainant saw Deputy General Manager of O.P.No.1 He also put forth illegal demand of Rs.33,622/-. The complainant was forced to pay the amount of Rs.33,622/- and he paid it without prejudice to his right. All the papers were delivered to the complainant for taking delivery of the car and for the purpose of R.T.O. registration. The complainant was asked to pay Rs.780/- for insurance and Rs.2,330/- as additional amount of R.T.O. charges. The complainant took the delivery on next date and R.T.O. registration was carried out. Being aggrieved by the action of the opponents, the complainant issued notice on 4th October, 2011. The complainant received e-mail from O.P.No.2 on 15th November, 2011 stating that the car which was agreed to be sold to the complainant was sold to somebody else. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint praying the amount of Rs.3,96,730/- as compensation for the damages suffered by the him.
2) The O.P.No.1 filed written statement and submitted that the ex showroom price of the car selected by the complainant was Rs.10,39,858/- including insurance, registration and other charges. The complainant opted to insure and register the vehicle at his own. Therefore, the price was fixed at Rs.9,37,352/-. The complainant transferred the amount by R.T.G.S. on 13th November, 2011 at 09.30 A.M. It was noticed that by that time the car selected by the complainant was sold out and the car available of the said specification was with added features costing extra amount Rs.33,622/-. Therefore, the extra amount was demanded from the complainant. The complainant also took extended warranty for two years for Rs.11,524/-. The complainant took the delivery of the car on 15th November, 2011. The complainant issued notice on 4th October, 2011 claiming false allegations. The same was suitably replied. Extra amount was demanded for additional features and the complainant agreed for it. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
3) The O.P.No.3 has filed the written statement and submitted that this O.P. delivered the car as requested by the dealer. This O.P. being a sales company provide car to the customer through its dealer. This O.P. does not deal with the customer and there is no cause of action against this O.P. as there is no deficiency in service from this O.P. All the other averments are denied as this O.P. has no concern with it.
4) The O.P.No.2 is the General Manager of O.P.No.1.
5) After filing written statement by the opposite parties matter, was fixed for filing affidavit of evidence by the both the parties. The opponents filed their affidavit of evidence but the complainant failed to file his affidavit of evidence in support of his claim. The opponents also filed their written notes of argument. The complainant failed to file his written notes of argument. The complainant remained absent. Therefore, argument of the opponents is heard.
6) After hearing the arguments of the opponents and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether there is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice ? | No |
2) | Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ? | No |
3) | What order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
7) As to Point No. 1 to 3 :-According to the complainant extra amount was recovered from him and thereby he suffered damages on account of gross unfair trade practice, mental agony, physical torture and unrest. On the other hand, it is the contention of the opponents that the car selected by the complainant was sold out. Therefore, the other car with those specifications with added features was purchased by the complainant. Amount of Rs.33,622/- was demanded for added features and the complainant paid it. In support of their contention, the opponents filed their affidavit of evidence. The complainant failed to file his affidavit of evidence to support his claim. The complainant has not challenged the defence of the opponents by filing his affidavit of evidence. In absence of affidavit of evidence, the contention of the complainant can not be accepted. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. –Versus- Ashok Manocha decided on 25th March, 2011in para 10 of the judgment has laid down as under :
It is well settled that pleadings cannot be held as evidence and in the absence of any evidence in support of the case set up, the certificate produced by the Petitioner from the hospital is of no help to the Petitioner because as stated above the Petitioner took no steps to prove the same; production of a document is different from proof of the same.
In the instant case before us also the complainant has not proved his contention by filing affidavit of evidence. Therefore, the contention of the complainant can not be accepted. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that extra amount was recovered from the complainant. There is no evidence on record to show the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as claimed, Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint stands dismissed
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 5th December, 2013
