DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.322 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  02.05.2017                                         Date of decision   :  06.12.2021

Rishi, S/o Sh. Satpal R/o House No. 1325, Sector 56, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Mehar International Mktg. (P) Ltd, authorized dealers: Piaggio Vehicle Pvt Ltd, B-26, Phase 3, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Managing Director/Director/ Partners/Authorised Signatory. 

2.     The Manager, IndusInd Bank, Phase-III-B-2, Mohali.

                                                            ……..Opposite Parties

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member

Present:    Shri Abhinay Goel, counsel for the complainant.

                None for OP No1.

Name of OP No.2 deleted vide order dated 04.10.2021.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’ for short), on the ground that the CC is a resident of Chandigarh. The CC has purchased three wheeler (Piaggio) bearing No. PB-65AE-6065 (T), Chassis No.ZEFUA395985, Engine No.ZU3003459, on 05.02.2017 from OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-. It is alleged, that the vehicle was got financed at the instance of OP No.1 from OP No.2. It is alleged that the there was a manufacturing defect in the vehicle and it was giving constant troubles. The CC contacted the OPs for removal of the defect in the vehicle, but they did not pay any heed and the vehicle has been parked with OP No.1. The CC also sent a request to OP No.2 that he was not able to pay the installments as there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and OP No.1 has not replaced the old vehicle with the  new one.

          Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,40,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

2.             In reply, OP No.1 who is mainly contesting  the matter, has averred that the CC purchased  the above mentioned vehicle  by paying an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-.  Temporary number to the vehicle was also allotted. The vehicle was delivered to the CC vide invoices C-1 and C-2. The CC plied the vehicle on the road and did not complain anything or pointed out any defect in it.  The CC approached OP No.1 regarding problem in the gears which was a minor defect and the same was rectified immediately. The CC even checked the vehicle. However, the CC refused to accept the vehicle and was adamant to replace the vehicle with a new one. The CC refused to listen to anyone and created a scene in the office of the OP No.1.  The CC left the vehicle and till date the vehicle is still lying in the premises of OP No.1 without any defect in it. Despite several requests to the CC, he did not budge from his adamant behavior and did not take the vehicle back. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part and any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, OP No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3.             On 04.10.20221, Ld. counsel for the complainant has suffered statement that he does not claim any relief against OP No.2 and accordingly name of OP No.2 was deleted from the arrays of OPs on 04.10.2021. Prior to that, OP No.2 has also filed the reply along with documents etc. which are very vital for the adjudication of this matter.

4.             In support of his complaint the CC submitted his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14.  On the other hand counsel OP No.1 has tendered  affidavit Ex OP1/1 and documents Ex OP1/2 to OP1/3. Op No.2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Vishal Hans Ex R-2 and documents Ex R2/1 to Ex R2/3.

5.             We, have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.

6.             From the perusal of documents attached by OP No.2 and the act and conduct of the CC and the allegations leveled by the CC without any documentary proof, it is crystal clear that the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands. There is no evidence on record submitted by the CC that the vehicle in question purchased from OP No.1 on payment of Rs.1,70,000/- was having any manufacturing defect, as alleged in the complaint. In the absence of any cogent evidence from the side of the complainant regarding manufacturing defect, the contention of the CC is out rightly rejected. It is pertinent to mention here that even if, there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle it was incumbent upon the CC to make the manufacturer as one  of the parties. It is also writ large on the file that the CC was adamant and dropped his vehicle in the premises of OP No.1 and till date did not pick up the same.

7.             As far as OP No.2 is concerned, it is also proved on file that the CC did not pay back the loan to OP No.2 and became defaulter of OP No.2. Even the matter went to the arbitrator and was decided by the Arbitrator, where the CC was also one of the parties. It is specifically held by the Arbitrator in Ex C-5 that the CC had availed loan from OP No.2 for purchasing an auto rickshaw. At the time of taking the loan, the CC had asked one Sunil Kumar, who was residing in the same locality  to sign some documents in order to open  a bank account and Branch Manager of the OP No.2 also insisted Sunil Kumar to sign  certain documents as a witness to open the bank account. It is also held by the Arbitrator that neither the Bank Manager nor the CC told Sunil Kumar that the CC is seeking loan from the bank for the purchase of auto rickshaw in which Sunil Kumar has also become a co-borrower /guarantor. It is held by the Arbitrator that Sunil Kumar was absolutely innocent and having no knowledge about the loan and the CC was successful in obtaining the loan by misrepresentation and fraud done on Sunil Kumar. Further the arbitrator termed the loan agreement as invalid as it was not signed by any Branch Manager. It is further held by the Arbitrator that very cleverly the CC gave a special power of attorney to his mother to contest the case on his behalf and then he left India and settled abroad.

8.             From the perusal of all the documents, it is writ large on the file that the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands and misused the process of law in order to conceal his own crime, fraud etc. which he committed in connivance with the Branch Manager the OP No.2 and with OP No.1.

9.             In view of above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint. However, OP No.2 is at liberty to take appropriate action against the CC and its concerned Branch Manager, if it desires so. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

December 06, 2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                       I Agree.

(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)

Member