Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.107/ 25.05.2018
Sh. NandLalDass s/o Sh. Shyam Sunder
R/o E-82, Jain Colony,Barwala, Delhi-110039 …Complainant
Versus
OP-1 M/s Yadav Auto Deals
(through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Person)
Abdul Aziz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
OP-2 RangiLal, R/o 234, Haiderpur Village,
Sanjay Camp, Delhi ...Opposite Parties
Order Reserved on:27.02.2023
Date of Order: 02.05.2023
Coram: Shri InderJeet Singh, President
Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member
Ms. Shahina, Member -Female
InderJeet Singh
ORDER
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) :Briefly, the complainant bought vehicle/TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RL-4017 belonging to OP2 but through financer OP1 M/s Yadav Auto Deals against consideration. It was financed in October, 2015 and amount was payable in 36 EMI of Rs. 8,230/- each and the complainant had paid Rs. 1,17,290/- till 15.03.2017. When complainant had requested OP1 for transfer of vehicle in his name after agreed payment of Rs.50,000/- and for documents, the OP1 asked an amount of Rs. 3,06,990/- illegally as well as the vehicle was not transferred in the name of complainant; the complainant is facing a lot of regular difficulties including petty police challan etc. There is unfair trade practice and deficiency of services by OPs.
1.2: Whereas, the OP1 denies the allegation of unfair trade practice and of deficiency in service on the ground that it is the complainant,who defaulted to pay all EMIs as well as the complainant is already having two vehicles (an auto rickshaw in his name and another GraminSewa vehicle) and under Government Policy, he cannot get transferred the subject TSR in his name. But it was to be transferred in the name of his relative, as requested by complainant, after payment of all EMIs and on furnishing papers in the name of relative.
2. (Case of complainant): The complainant, specially-able person, purchased TSR DL-1RL-4017 (hereinafter referred as TSR), to earn his livelihood and income, from OP1 Yadav Auto Deals in first week of February 2015 for total agreed amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.The TSR is in the name of OP2 Sh. RangiLal. It was agreed that after payment of Rs. 50,000/-, the TSR will be transferred in the name of complainant through registration certificate and other documents from the name of OP2, who had also consented. The amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was payable by way of 36 EMIs of Rs. 8,230/- each, w.e.f. February, 2015. The complainant paid more than Rs. 50,000/- till October, 2015 in the office of OP1 and Rs. 1,17,290/- till 15.03.2017, however, the OP1 failed to transfer the vehicle in his name; when so requested the OP1 asked complainant to pay Rs. 3,06,990/-, which is illegal. Since the vehicle has been financed/hypothecated by OP1 and the complainant has to approach the OPs, whenever there is a petty matter/police challan, however, both OP1 and OP2 are hands in gloves. They are not transferring the vehicle in the name of complainant, despite legal notice dated 11.05.2018 sent to OP1. The vehicle is lying idle, being parked due to regular threats to seize the same by OPs. The complainant also informed the police by complaint. That is why, the present complaint for appropriate directionseither to transfer the vehicle and handover documents to the complainant, or in alternate, the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,17,290/- along with interest @ 18%, apart from p.a. to pay amount of Rs. 50,000/- as damages and also litigation expenses.
The complaint filed is accompanying documentary records of identity of complainant, copies of RC of TSR, various receipts of payment of OP1, cheque of Rs. 20,000/-, insurance policy (in the name of OP2), manually written calculation sheets, medical certificates of physical handicapped of complainant, legal notice dated 11.05.2018 and police report of 11.05.2018.
3.1 (Case of OP1) : OP1 filed its detailed reply for OP1 and OP2 (under the signature of its partner Sh. R.B. Yadav) and the complaint has been opposed, briefly there was a loan agreement of Rs. 2,00,000/- returnable in 36 EMI of Rs. 8,230/- each and complainant had paid about 10.8 EMIs to OP1. OP2 has no concern with the complaint, as he had already issued Form no. 29 and Form no. 30 of TSR in favour of OP1. The complainant is at his own fault of not paying EMIs. , There is no unfair trade practice or of deficiency in services since it is complainant, who failed to pay the all the EMIs as well as the complainant is already having two vehicles (an auto rickshaw in his name and another GraminSewa vehicle). Under Government Policy, he cannot get registered/transferred the subject TSR in his name but he had requested to get transferred TSR in the name of his relative after payment of all EMIs. He had also requested that after payment of all EMIs, he will furnish documents of his relatives, so that TSR may be transferred in the name of such relative. Moreover, it was not February 2015 but December 2014 when the complainant approached OP1. The complainant failed to honourhis own compliance of payment of all EMIs. The OP1 had also obtained order from the hon'ble court and took possession of the vehicle from complainant. The present complaint is abuse of process of law. However, the reply is not accompanied with any document.
3.2: Since the reply was filed under the title of written statement on behalf of OP1 and OP2, however, the written statement just bears signature of a partner of OP1 and in the contents of written statement, OP1 takes the plea that OP2 has no concern with the complaint because of Forms no.29 and 30. It is clear that there was no specific written authority or instructions by the OP2 to the OP1 to sign, verify and file the written statement on behalf of OP2, which is requirement of law. Thus, the written statement is of OP1, it will be considered for OP1 exclusively, as merely possessing the Forms No. 29 & 30 would not be construed authority for filing the written statement on behalf of OP2, otherwise no such document were filed.
4. (Replication of complainant) : The complainant filed replication to the written statement. The complainant denies all the allegations mentioned in the written statement and correspondingly refers the complaint as correct. The complainant has no knowledge of Form No. 29 & 30 in favour of OP1 by OP2. OP1 had seized TSR from the authorized parking and it is being illegally possessed by it since 03.06.2018.He reiterates the complaint that it is the responsibility of OPs to transfer the vehicle in the name of complainant or meet the alternate relief.
5.1 (Evidence) : The complainant filed his affidavit of evidence, on the pattern of complaint coupled with the documentary record already referred.
5.2: Whereas the OP1 failed to lead evidence despite opportunity given, thus evidencewas closed.
6.1 (Final hearing) : The complainant filed the written arguments and oral submissions were made by Sh. Shushil Kumar Advocate for complainant.
6.2: On the other side, the opportunity was also given to file written argument on the side of OP, but the opportunity was not availed and right to file written arguments was also closed. There were also no oral submission on behalf of OP.
7.1 (Findings) : The contentions of the parties are considered analytically keeping in view the material on record either as documentary record or otherwise evidence of the complainant.besides the contentions raised by other side in the pleading.
7.2: It is admitted case of parties that complainant had entered into a transaction with the OP1 for TSR and the amount agreed was Rs. 2,00,000/- payable in 36 EMIs of Rs. 8,230/- each. The total amount of 36 EMIs comes to Rs. 2,96,280/- payable from February 2015 to January 2018. It is also admitted case of the complainant that amount was payable in 36 EMI and he had paid amount partly of Rs. 1,17,290/- till 15.03.2017.
7.3: Thus, the disputes remains whether there is deficiency of services or unfair trade practice for want of transfer of TSR in the name of complainant after payment of Rs.50,000/-. As per the material on record, since 36 EMI of Rs. 8,230/- was agreed to be payable up-to January 2018, the circumstances are not convincing that in the middle ofpayment of 10.8 EMIs, the complainant would be entitled for transfer of TSR, without awaiting for payment of further installments. There is also no proof of any documentary record that it was agreed that after receivingRs. 50,000/- by OP1, the TSR would be transferred by OPs in the name of complainant, while knowing it well that vehicle belongs to OP2 and installments payable were agreed with OP1. The complainant is taking inconsistent and contradictory stands. The case of complainant is of contract, however, he could not prove that as per contract the TSR was to be transferred in his name after part payment or particular amount. The OP1 asserts that it possessed the TSR pursuant to court orders, but complainant just reply that it was possessed by OP1 illegally without specific response to the fact that it was pursuant to court orders.
7.4: The circumstances are not suggesting or inferring that there is any deficiency by the OP1 or OP2 or unfair trade practice on the part of OP1.
7.5: Therefore, the complainant could not establish his complaint against either of the OPs. The complaints fails. The complaint is dismissed.
8. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.
9: Announced on this 2nd May, 2023 [वैशाख12 ,साका1945].
[Vyas Muni Rai] [ Shahina] [InderJeet Singh]
Member Member (Female) President
