METRO MOTORS Vs. SHAM LAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE called several times since morning but none put in appearance on behalf of the respondents though the case is fixed for arguments. It is already 1.00 p.m. This appeal relates to the year 2006. Heavy pendency of appeals/complaints as well as non -cooperative attitude of the parties/their Counsel is the reason for heavy cause list. Under these circumstances we do not think it appropriate to adjourn this appeal indefinitely and therefore we proceed to decide the same after hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and going through the case file.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 18.4.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby opposite party No. 2 (appellant herein) has been held deficient in service for not giving rebate in respect of the price of complainant's vehicle and the respondent No. 1 -Bank (respondent No. 2 herein) has been held deficient in service for charging Rs. 75 per month excess on account of monthly instalment.

(3.) THE grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that he had purchased a TATA Indica car from the opposite party No. 2 on 15.6.2001 which was duly financed with the opposite party No. 1. According to the complainant he had to pay monthly instalment of Rs. 8150 but the opposite party No. 1 was charging Rs. 8,225 i.e. Rs. 75 per month, in excess. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 had assured him to give rebate of Rs. 5,540 but the same was not given to him. Thus, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing their separate written statements. Opposite Party No. 1 in its written statement stated that the monthly instalment of the complainant was Rs. 8,225 and not Rs. 8,150 as alleged by the complainant. It was further stated that the rebate amount of Rs. 5,540 as alleged by the opposite party No. 2, was never received by it.