STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 02.02.2018
Date of final hearing: 21.07.2023
Date of pronouncement: 28.08.2023
First Appeal No.221 of 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Harjeet Singh, aged about 40 years, S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, R/o H.No.422, Village Ratauli, P.O. Khera, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. ....Appellant
Versus
- M/s KBS Motors Private Ltd. Authorized Dealers: Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Village Tepla, Ambala- Jagadhri Road, SAHA, Distt. Ambala-133104 through its Managing Director / Partner / Proprietor.
- M/s KBS Motors Private Ltd. near Fish Market, Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar through its partner/proprietor.
- Axis Bank, near Mela Singh Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Sh. Ajay Chauhan, proxy counsel for Sh. D.S. Adlakha, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Saurabh Garg, counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2.
Respondent No. 3 already proceeded against exparte.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Challenge in this appeal No.221 of 2018 has been invited by unsuccessful complainant-Harjeet Singh, to the legality of order dated 28.12.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.343 of 2017, which has been disposed off with direction to him (appellant) to deposit balance amount of Rs.1,08,522/- with OPs No. 1 & 2 and thereafter OPs No. 1 and 2 without any further delay, shall return original documents to complainant so required by him for registration of vehicle in question with concerned Registering Authority, along with key of vehicle.
2. Complainant alleged that in April-2017, some representatives of OP No.2 allured him that OPs have launched special scheme for persons, who intend to purchase Mahindra vehicle. Under that scheme, they (OP) will finance 90% of total sale price of vehicle. As per assurance given to him, he purchased vehicle viz. Model Bolero Power + Six H.P./CC 1493 bearing engine No.WJH6C24406 and OPs delivered its possession, along with insurance cover note of vehicle to him. In insurance cover note, it has been shown that vehicle is financed by ICICI Bank Ltd. Complainant received phone call from OPs No.1 & 2 that they could not get arrange finance from ICICI Bank Ltd. because it has refused to finance the vehicle. Complainant got issued legal notice (dated 02.05.2017) upon OPs No.1 & 2 to get back possession of vehicle and to return amount of Rs.60,000/-, six blank signed Cheques, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, his Bank Statement and other documents which were got signed by OP No.1 from him. Thereupon, OPs called him and requested that they could arrange loan facility against vehicle from Axis Bank i.e. OP No.3. Complainant admitted said request of OPs No.1 & 2, so, ultimately, vehicle was financed with OP No.3 for Rs.6,05,000/- against total sale price of vehicle i.e. Rs.7,62,000/-. He issued another legal notice dated 02.08.2017 to OPs. He requested OPs to give him original bill and other documents in respect of said vehicle so that he could get his vehicle registered with MV Authority-Jagadhri and OP No.3 has given: photo-copy of insurance cover note No.GP 21364512 issued by TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein, name of finance company is shown as Axis Bank Ltd., whereas in insurance cover note No.GP 21256092, issued by OPs No.1 & 2 to him against aforesaid vehicle, name of finance company is shown as ICICI Bank Ltd. On this ground also, it is pleaded that it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and he filed complaint praying for directions to OPs No.1 & 2: to hand over original bill and other documents and to handover another original key of the aforesaid vehicle which has been illegally retained by OPs No. 1 & 2 and to handover original service-book of vehicle, warranty card of battery installed in vehicle and to return six cheques which were taken by OPs No.1 & 2 and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony as-well-as litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Upon notice, OPs raised contest. In defence taken by OPs No. 1 & 2; preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action were taken. It is pleaded that complainant himself approached OPs No. 1 & 2 and expressed wish to purchase Mahindra Vehicle under some scheme and it was told by complainant that he wanted to get loan from ICICI Bank and complainant by giving a reference of some known person of the OPs No. 1 & 2 paid Rs.5,000/- on 12.04.2017 and by assuring that loan will be disbursed by bank at earliest possible. On 14.04.2017 (wrongly mentioned as 14.07.2017 in written statement) Rs.60,000/- was paid by complainant. Thus, a total sum of Rs.65,000/- was paid at Ambala and complainant was given rebate and discount of Rs.425/- and also given exchange bonus of Rs.10,000/-. As per account statement, he is liable to pay Rs.1,08,522/- to OPs No. 1 & 2 and besides this amount, he is liable to pay interest of Rs.29,311/- on Rs.6,00,000/-, which should have been paid on 14.07.2017 but same was paid on 21.09.2017 and balance amount of Rs.1,08,522/- is payable since 14.07.2017 and interest on that amount from 14.07.2017 to 23.10.2017 comes to Rs.10,597/-. It is pleaded that complainant is now liable to pay Rs.1,48,430/-. It is pleaded that on cover note; name of bank has been mentioned as ICICI Bank because complainant himself told that he has submitted papers to ICICI Bank. Bank refused to grant loan to him and thereafter, he applied to OP No.3-bank and it has sanctioned loan of Rs.6,06,478/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 & 2. Inter alia on these basic pleas; dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
4. OP No.3 filed its separate defence wherein preliminary objections were taken with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; complaint being false and frivolous. It is pleaded that all original documents pertaining to vehicle always remain, either with OPs No.1 & 2 or with complainant, since OP No.3 has nothing to do with original documents of vehicle; only photo-copies remain with OP No.3. There is no deficiency in service on its part. It is pleaded that vehicle in question i.e. Mahindra Balero was financed by OP No.3 on request of OPs No.1 & 2 and financed amount was duly sent to OPs No.1 & 2. On these pleas prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
5. Parties to this lis led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
6. On subjectively analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission-Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide order dated 28.12.2017 has dispose off the complaint in a manner as mentioned above.
7. Feeling aggrieved; complainant has filed this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for parties have been heard at length. With their able assistance; record too has been perused.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant has urged that OPs No. 1 and 2 had got financed vehicle from OP No. 3. The sale price of vehicle was sent by OP No. 3 to OPs No. 1 and 2 as per specific stand taken in written version by OP No. 3. In these circumstances, as per contention, OPs No. 1 and 2 should have promptly supplied original documents concerning vehicle in question which were required for vehicle’s registration. Had, there been any amount, outstanding due against vehicle in question from appellant, despite getting it financed, then OPs No. 1 and 2 should have recovered the same from him by serving notice to him, which never happened. Hence, it is urged that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 and 2 and demand raised by OPs No. 1 and 2 regarding outstanding amount due from him, against vehicle and direction issued by learned District Consumer Commission to him (complainant) to pay balance amount of Rs.1,08,522/- was unjustified and legally not sustainable. In this regard, it is further urged that once possession of vehicle was given to complainant then, it would legally imply that OPs No. 1 & 2 had received full amount on the day of delivery of possession. It is also urged that Rs.1,00,000/- had been paid in cash towards outstanding dues of vehicle to OPs No. 1 and 2 and this aspect has been expressly pleaded in the memorandum of appeal and complainant has also deposed on this aspect through his duly sworn affidavit dated 08.12.2017 Ex.CA before the learned District Consumer Commission. On above submissions; learned counsel appearing for complainant/appellant has urged for acceptance of appeal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2/OPs No. 1 and 2 has supported the impugned order dated 28.12.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri by urging that it is outcome of proper appreciation of facts and evidence. It is urged that in complaint, or in two legal notices; there is no whisper about payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash by complainant.
11. Admittedly, complainant purchased vehicle from OPs No. 1 & 2 for Rs.7,62,000/-. Ex.R-1 is the ledger account statement of complainant/appellant for the period from 01.04.2017 to 19.12.2017. This reflects that: retail invoice dated 22.04.2017 is of the amount of Rs.7,62,204/-. In firm opinion of this Commission, this ledger account statement would form a formidable and acceptable base to decide the controversy in hand. Reason is obvious. It (Ex.R-1) also reflects that as per closing balance; Rs.7,90,425/- has been shown on the Debit side (amount due) while Rs.6,81,903/- has been shown on the Credit side (amount paid). The difference will make the outstanding amount due against appellant to the tune of Rs.1,08,522/-. There is no evidence led by appellant to counter this evidence. The contention raised by appellant that Rs.1,00,000/- had been paid by him, in cash, stood traumatized for the reason that neither in the complaint, nor the two legal notices (one dated 02.05.2017 and other dated 02.08.2017) do not recite anywhere that Rs.1,00,000/- had been paid by complainant by cash towards outstanding due amount. Even no receipt showing payment of this amount has been brought on record. Complaint filed by appellant also sans such particular. In wake of above, there is absolutely no reason to believe the stance of complainant that he had paid Rs.1,00,000/-, in cash, to OPs No. 1 and 2 towards outstanding amount. How, and under what circumstance, this plea has been taken in memorandum of appeal (ground-e thereof) is quite mysterious and mystifying, totally unbelievable in legal parlance. Likewise, deposition by complainant to this effect in his duly sworn affidavit dated 08.12.2017 (Ex.CA) is liable to be rejected straightway, being the evidence, beyond his pleadings of complaint. Palpably, such like deposition has solely been given by complainant, only to sub-serve his own cause and to make his fortune.
12. For the reasons recorded above, this Commission does not find any manifest error in the appreciation of evidence by learned District Commission. Impugned Order dated 28.12.2017 is the outcome of meticulous appreciation of facts and evidence by District Consumer Commission-Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Complainant has rightly been non-suited. Impugned order dated 28.12.2017 is affirmed and maintained. Present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
13. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
14. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 28th August, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
