Punjab

Sangrur

CC/467/2018

Rashmeet Saggu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tulsi Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.P.Sharma

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR

                                                                     Complaint no. 467       

                                                                     Instituted on:  13.11.2018                                                                          

                                                                     Decided on:    10.10.2022

Rashmeet Saggu minor daughter of Varinder Singh Saggu, resident of Ward No.2-B, Janta Nagar, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through his natural guardian father Sh. Varinder Saggu son of Gurmeet Singh.

                                                …. Complainant  

                                                              Versus

1.       Tulsi Motors through its partner/prop. Kakarwal-Benra Road, Near Mata Mansa Devi Mandir, Dhuri (Earlier near Malerkotla Road, Modern Technical College, Dhuri) now through Shiv kumar S/o Dharampal being partner/prop. C/o Shiv Karyana Store, Gali No.5, Khalifa Bagh, Sangrur.

2.       Jagdish Kumar son of Shobh Raj C/o Arora Emporium, Sunami Gate, Near Petrol Pump, Sangrur (Partner  of Tulsi Motors Dhuri);

3.       Sanjeev Bajaj son of Ram Lal C/o The Army School, Sangrur (Partner of Tulsi Motors, Dhuri):

4.       Shiv Kumar  son of Dharampal C/o Shiv Karyana Store, Gali No.5, Khalifa Bagh Sangrur (Partner/Prop. of Tulsi Motors, Dhuri). 

 

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:           Shri SP Sharma,   Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1,3&4 :        Shri Amit Jain, Advocate                          

FOR OPP.PARTY NO.2         :                  Shri J.S.Sahni, Advocate

 

Quorum

                                               

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL   : PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                              : MEMBER

                 

ORDER:  

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:

 

1.             Rashmeet Saggu minor daughter of Varinder Singh Saggu through her natural guardian her father Shri Varinder Saggu has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the OPs launched  a sale promotion scheme consisting of various members for the period  of 36 months as per which each member had to pay 36 equal monthly installment of Rs.1550/- per month  and complainant became a member of the said scheme vide membership no.31 of Group D and paid 18 monthly installments  of Rs.1550/-per month i.e. total Rs.27,900/-. Thereafter the Ops failed to receive further monthly installments alleging closure of scheme by OPs wrongly. The OPs thus received total amount of Rs.27,900/- as consideration at Dhuri and issued receipts. The OPs must have refunded the said paid amount of Rs.27,900/- to the complainant along with interest but they failed to refund  the said amount despite repeated requests and serving of legal notice dated 26.4.2018 upon the OPs. The complainant also got served another legal notice dated 16.8.2018 but no reply was given by the Ops thereof. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.27,900/- along with interest @18% per annum and further to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment and further to pay Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs no.1, 3 and 4, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complaint should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On merits, it has been admitted that the OPs launched a sale promotion scheme for the period of 36 months which was for promoting the sale of TVS vehicles.   It is stated further that it is OP number 2, who made embezzlement  in the accounts and showed loss to OP no.1 as such the business was closed by the Ops. It is denied that the complainant ever approached OP  for settlement of the matter. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2. On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant was the member of scheme and deposited 18 monthly instaments of Rs.1550/-. It is stated further that the whole of the record is with the OPs number 3 and 4 and other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit of complainant, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-22 copies of various receipts, legal notice and copies of postal receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP no.1,3 & 4 has produced affidavit of Shiv Kumar as Ex.OP1,3&4/1, Ex.OP1,3&4/2 copy of letter of TVS Motor regarding suspension of business of OPs. OP no.2 has tendered Ex.OP2/1, Ex.OP2/2 and Ex.OP2/4 copies of documents and Ex.OP2/3 affidavit and closed evidence.

5.             It is the case of the complainant that she paid an amount of Rs.27,900/- to OPs against 18 monthly installments  of Rs.1550/- per  month and OPs had promised to deliver the vehicle or adjustment of its price at the end of scheme but  they discontinued the scheme.  Thus, the OPs  are liable to  refund the amount along with interest. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued vehemently that Op no.2 was looking after the accounts of OP no.1 who made embezzlement  in the accounts and showed loss to OP no.1 due to which TVS motors suspended the dealership of the OPs and stopped to provide the vehicles to the OPs due to which the OPs were constrained to stop the said scheme. The OPs number 1, 3 and 4 have produced on record letter dated 18.7.2018, which shows that TVS Motors actually suspended the dealership of the Ops w.e.f. 1.10.2018. Learned counsel for the OPs number 1, 3 & 4 has further submitted that they never refused to settle the matter with the complainant.  It means that the OPs have admitted deposit of Rs.27,900/- by the complainant with them and their liability to refund the same. None of the Ops replied to the legal notice sent by the complainant on 16.8.2018, Ex.C-18. The complainant has vehemently denied that the complaint being pre mature or violation of terms of the scheme by the complainant or default on the part of the complainant in any term. Further the complainant during the oral arguments submitted that the Ops stopped the scheme for itself and failed to receive further monthly instalments alleging the closer of the scheme by the Ops wrongly. The Ops did not rebut the claim of the complainant.  Further the Ops during the oral arguments time and again emphasized on the Terms and Conditions specifically at serial number 6 of the scheme that in case of member not giving three instalments to the Ops then in that case his membership would be closed without giving any prior notice. But the complainant argued that complainant had regularly paid 18 number instalments of Rs.1550/- each to the Ops, as such the Ops do not have any right to forfeit the amount so deposited with them as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. In the circumstances of the case, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs and  OPs are deficient in service for non-refunding the deposited amount of Rs.27,900/- along with interest.   Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.27,900/- to the complainant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. We further direct OPs to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- on account of mental pain agony, harassment and also Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Since the complainant is a minor, therefore, the above said amount shall be kept in the shape of FDR with any nationalized bank till she/complainant attains majority. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.      

                                Pronounced.

 

                                October 12, 2022.

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member                                         President