SATLUJ MOTORS Vs. TRIMURTI TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT , M/s. Trimurti Textiles, which is a sole proprietorship concern of Braham Dutt, wanted to purchase a Nano car, for which it sought a quotation from appellant, M/s. Satluj Motors, Lunapani, District Mandi, on 29.03.2012. Quotation, which is available at page -33 of the record of learned District Forum, was issued, in which price was quoted at Rs. 1,49,617/ - for the car, insurance, extended warranty, TRC and logistic. On 11.04.2012, respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -, on account of booking money in cash, against receipt, available at pages -34. On 13.04.2012, respondent/complainant gave a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 1,22,617/ - to the appellant, through a letter, available at page -35. Copy of bank draft, submitted with the said application, is available at page -36. A sum of Rs. 27,000/ - was adjusted towards the value of old scooter, which was given to the appellant by the respondent/complainant. Gar was delivered to the respondent/complainant on 13.04.2012 itself. Gate pass -cum -delivery challan is available at page -37. Alongwith the car, policy certificate available at page -38, was also delivered, in which the price of the car is mentioned as Rs. 1,39,286/ -. However, bill and some documents, required for registration of the vehicle, were not issued. Respondent/complainant addressed a letter dated 11.05.2012 to the appellant, asking for the bill and other documents in the shape of certain forms, to enable it to seek registration of the vehicle, but the appellant did not supply the said papers. Respondent/complainant then served a legal notice on 17.08.2012, copy available at pages -43 to 45. Notice was sent by registered post, but papers were not supplied. Therefore, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the appellant to deliver relevant documents, to unable it get the vehicle registered and also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/ - in lump -sum and at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per day for non -use of the vehicle and loss of business, besides seeking litigation expenses.

(2.) APPELLANT contested the complaint. It admitted having received a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as booking amount and a sum of Rs. 1,22,617/ -, by way of draft, on the date of delivery of the vehicle, but pleaded that quoted price was Rs. 1,52,594/ - and not Rs. 1,49,617/ -, as alleged by the respondent/complainant. It was also stated that vehicle was sold, under a scheme of purchase of old vehicle by the appellant and the respondent/complainant had given an old scooter, which was evaluated at Rs. 24,000/ - and not at Rs. 27,000/ -, as alleged in the complaint. It was stated that a sum of Rs. 4,977/ - was still payable by the respondent/complainant, at the time when vehicle was delivered to him and the documents required for registration of vehicle, were to be handed over to the respondent/complainant, only on his paying the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,977/ -.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, as also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant and gone through the record. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent No. 2.