SAIUJA FORD Vs. HIRA LAL THAKUR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Kullu. in Complaint No. 44/2006, dated 25.5.2007, whereby the complaint was allowed only against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,500 to the complainant within one month from today failing which it shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till payment. Opposite Party No. 1 was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution till its payment and directions were given to the opposite party No.1 to deliver the original documents of sale of Ford 1.3 Ikon Car to the complainant along with one key thereof immediately failing of which it shall be liable to pay penalty of Rs. 100 per day to the complainant from today till the documents and key are delivered to the complainant. Litigation cost was quantified at Rs. 2,000. Parties are hereinafter being referred to as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record are that the complainant who wanted to buy a Ford Ikon Flair Car in January, 2006. The complainant had sought financial assistance for purchase of car from opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 1 was stated registered dealer of Ford Ikon Flair Cars. On 12.1.2006 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2 had granted financial assistance of Rs.3,31,000 to the complainant for the purchase of car. The opposite party No. had directly paid the amount of Rs.3,31,000 to opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 had delivered Ford Ikon Flair car to the complainant on 12.1.2006. The complainant had got the car insured for the period from 12.1.2006 to 11.1.2007 by paying Rs.16,000 to opposite party No.4. The opposite party No.1 in tie up with the local registering and licensing authority had applied temporary registration No.HP -33A -9209 to the car of the complainant. Later on opposite party No. 1 on 25.1.2006 had asked for additional payment of Rs. 7,000. The complainant had paid the amount of Rs. 7,000 to opposite party No. 1 on 25.1.2006. Again on 1.2.2006 opposite party No. 1 had asked for additional amount of Rs.42,500. The complainant had paid the amount of Rs.42,500 to opposite party No. 1. As per the invoice dated 3.1.2006, the sale price of Ford Ikon Flair Car was Rs.4,67,000. As against this the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,80,500 to opposite party No.1.

(3.) EVEN after receipt of excess amount from the complainant, the opposite party No.1 had not delivered sale letter, other documents of sale of the vehicle and one key of the car. The opposite party No. 1 had started proclaiming having got insurance cover of the vehicle from opposite party No. 4. This was absolutely wrong. The complainant had not been able to get his Ford car registered with the licensing authority concerned because of non -availability of documents of sale. Hence, deficiency of service was alleged on the part of the opposite parties, wherein compensation had been claimed for mental harassment, agony and pain and relief has also been claimed for withholding of documents of sale of vehicle by the opposite parties on the ground of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.