Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/1295

MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRIRAM MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

SH.VISHNU TIWARI

10 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1295 OF 2016

(Arising out of order dated 08.08.2016 passed in C.C.No.160/2015 by District Commission, Rewa)

 

MANOJ KUMAR SHUKLA,

S/O SHRI VASHISHTHA PRASAD SHUKLA,

R/O VILLAGE-BARBAH, POLICE STATION-

CHORHATA, TEHSIL-HUZUR,

DISTRICT-REWA (M.P.)                                                                                 … APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

1. MANAGER, SHRI RAM MOTORS,

    BRANCH OFFICE-YATAYAT NAGAR,

    PADRA, REWA

 

2. MANAGER, INDUSIND BANK LTD.

    CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.

    BRANCH OFFICE-JOHN TOWER,

    COLLEGE ROAD, REWA (M.P.)                                                             ...   RESPONDENTS.  

                    

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                      

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Vishnu Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent no.1.

           Shri Mukesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 10.07.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:   

                   This appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission’) in

 

-2-

C.C.No.160/2015 whereby the complaint filed by him has been partly allowed.

2.                Brief facts of the case, give rise to the dispute are that the complainant/appellant on 28.08.2014 after availing finance from the opposite party no.2, had purchased a Mahindra JCB from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.23,43,000/- out of which he paid Rs.5,30,000/- in cash and remaining Rs.17,00,000/- was paid after getting it financed from the opposite party no.2-bank. It is submitted that at the time of purchase, the opposite party no.1 assured him to give discount of Rs.1,00,000/- and in form of additional benefit, it was assured that the opposite party no.1 will provide registration of the vehicle and one year insurance of the vehicle. It is alleged that the opposite party no.1 till today did not provide sale letter nor got registered and insured the vehicle. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking direction to the opposite party no.1 to get the vehicle registered and insured as also to pay Rs.10,50,000/- as compensation.

3.                The opposite party no.1-Sri Ram Motors in reply to the complaint admitted the fact that they sold the JCB to the complainant and gave assurance to get the vehicle registered and insured. The vehicle got insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. of which premium was not taken from the complainant. The complainant had to deposit the road tax of the

-3-

subject vehicle and since he did not deposit the road tax, the vehicle was not registered. They are ready and willing to get the vehicle registered as and when the complainant will pay road tax. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1. Prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs is made.

4.                The opposite party no.2-bank in reply to the complaint admitted that they had given financial assistance to the complainant to purchase the JCB. Rest of the facts are not related to them. The dispute is between the complainant and the dealer and no allegations were made against the opposite party no.2 as also no relief was sought from them. It is therefore prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed.

5.                The District Commission partly allowing the complaint against the opposite party no.1, directed that the opposite party no.1 will bear the expenses for road tax from the date of purchase till 01.10.2014 and for the remaining period the complainant will pay amount of road tax.  Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards compensation and costs. The complaint against the opposite party no.2 was dismissed by the District Commission.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is against the law. The District

-4-

Commission failed to consider the facts and documents filed on record. The District Commission did not consider that despite assurance, the opposite party no.1 did not the vehicle registered and insured. The District Commission has erred that since the complainant did not deposit the road tax, therefore the vehicle could not get registered. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the relief sought in the complaint be awarded. 

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-bank argued that the bank had only financed the JCB and the bank has nothing to do with the dispute between the complaint and the opposite party no.1. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint against them.

9.                In support of his complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and affidavit of Pawan Kumar Singh along with documents P-1 to P-14.  On behalf of opposite party no.1 affidavits of Shri J. K. Tiwari and Shri Sandeep Tripathi along with two documents D-1 & D-2 have been filed. On behalf of opposite party no.2-bank an affidavit of Shri Praveen Chandra Mishra has been filed.

10.              We have very carefully gone through the record. In his complainant the complainant has submitted that he paid Rs.5,30,000/- in cash and remaining Rs.17,00,000/- were paid through financer i.e. opposite party no.2-bank thus in total he paid 22,30,000/- to the opposite party no.1

-5-

towards cost of JCB. From the document P-1, it is clear that the price of the vehicle was Rs.23,43,000/- and in which there is mention of cash discount for Rs.1,00,000/- therefore, an amount of Rs.22,43,000/- was to be paid to the opposite party no.1 towards cost of JCB whereas admittedly the complainant had paid only Rs.22,30,000/- to the opposite party no.1. Thus in all he got discount of Rs.1,13,000/- from the opposite party no.1 therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party no.1 did not give him discount of Rs.1,00,000/- has no stand and is without any basis.

11.              So far as the question of insurance (free of cost) of the vehicle is concerned, the opposite party no.1 has filed a policy document D-1 from which it is clear that the opposite party no.1 got the subject vehicle insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd for the period w.e.f. 30.09.2014 to 29.09.2015 for which they paid total premium of Rs.13,806/- and the said premium was not taken from the complainant. Thus the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party no.1 did not get the vehicle insured free of cost cannot be accepted.

12.              Now the question remains with regard to registration of subject vehicle. The defense put forward by the opposite party no.1 in their reply that they had repeatedly asked the complainant to deposit the road tax so that they can get the vehicle registered but the complainant did not deposit the road tax. On the other hand the allegation of the complainant is that it

-6-

was the duty of the opposite party no.1 to get the vehicle registered as per assurance given. The opposite party no.1 has submitted that since 1^st October 2014 new rules with regard to road tax came into force that for registration of the vehicle life time road tax is required to be paid. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 28.08.2014 and the new rules came in force w.e.f. 01.10.2014.

13.              In such circumstances, we find that the District Commission has rightly reached to the conclusion and directed the opposite party no.1 to pay the amount of road tax for the period 28.08.2014 till 01.10.2014 and the remaining road tax will be payable by the complainant. Since there is no appeal filed by the opposite party we cannot interfere with the directions with regard to the road tax. The District Commission has also directed for payment of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs.

14.              In view of the aforesaid we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

15.              In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Presiding Member                             Member