UDAI VEER GUPTA Vs. BALAJI CAR POINT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order of ours, we are disposing of 2 appeals bearing No. 2311 of 2008 (filed by the complainant) and the appeal No. 44 of 2009 (filed by OPs No. 1 and 2) arising out of the order dated 5.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 625 of 2008.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the OPs No. 1 and 2 informed the complainant that a car meeting his requirements was available with them; whereupon the said OPs showed the complainant TATA Indigo Car bearing registration No. HR -03 -E -6252 lying with them for sale, having been put to sale by the OP No.5. The complainant was offered a test drive by the OPs No. 1 and 2 of the car in question and thereafter a deal was stuck for the sale of the said car, to the complainant for a total consideration amount of Rs. 2,65,000 (including all commissions) only. The OPs No. 1 and 2 assured the complainant that the title of the car was clear and that the necessary documents pertaining to the ownership of the car were in their possession. In pursuance of the said undertaking between the complainant as well as the OPs No. 1 and 2, he paid a sum of Rs.10,000 to OPs No. 1 and 2 on 17.6.2007 and a receipt of the said date bearing No. 453 was issued. Subsequently the complainant made another payment of Rs.90,000 to OPs No. 1 and 2 on 21.6.2007 vide their receipt No. 456. It was submitted by the complainant that after having made the payment of Rs. 1,00,000 out of the total amount of Rs. 2,65,000 for the car in question, which on the date of the said deal showed an Odometer reading of 56074 Kms run only. The complainant informed the OPs No. 1 and 2 that the balance amount had to be arranged via a car loan so that car could be delivered to the complainant at the earliest. The OPs No. 1 and 2 made an offer to arrange the car loan from OP No. 3 who claimed itself to be the franchisee of the ICICI Bank Ltd. The OP No. 4 offered a car loan for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the complainant @ 11.90% interest Which was quite agreeable to the complainant and he consented to allow the OP No. 3 to process his papers for the car loan with the OP No. 4. It was submitted that the complainant was shocked to know from OP No. 3 that his loan has been approved for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and the same was directly delivered to the OPs No. 1 and 2 in their name. It was further submitted by the complainant that OPs No. 1 and 2 received another sum of Rs. 5,000 in cash from the complainant as their commission without issuing any receipt thereof on 21.6.2007 at the time of delivery of the possession of the car in question. Since the majority of the amount i.e. Rs. 2,55,000 stood paid to OPs No. 1 and 2, the complainant was well within his right to demand the ownership papers so that the same could be transferred into his name as already assured by OPs No. 1 and 2. The complainant was informed by OPs No. 1 and 2 that the relevant registration papers of the car in question were lying/with the Registering Authority, Panchkula for some entries and they would be delivering the same within a week. However a coloured Xerox of the Certificate of Registration of the car was handed over to the complainant which clearly revealed that the vehicle was already hypothecated with the ICICI Bank Ltd, OP No. 4. The complainant took the possession of the car in question from OPs No. 1 and 2 and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,000 to them as and when the registration papers of the car, free from all encumbrances were delivered to him along with the forms required to be signed by the OP No. 5 for the transfer of the ownership in the name of the complainant. It was further submitted that when nothing was forthcoming after a period of a week as promised, the complainant approached them again on 11.7.2007 and the said OPs flatly refused to hand over the documents to the complainant and even failed to entertain the complainant. The complainant was shocked by the rude behaviour of the OPs in question, got very suspicious and immediately tried to contact OP No. 5 being the owner of the car in question, who deliberately refused to meet the complainant and the complainant was compelled to write a letter dated 16.7.2007under registered cover to him seeking clarification with regard to the status of the car in question. Thereafter the complainant sent a letter to the S.S.P. of Chandigarh vide his complaint dated 16.7.2007 but no action was taken by the Police Authority on the said complaint. The complainant filed a Criminal Complaint before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chandigarh against OP Nos. 1 to 4 on 15.11.2007 under Sections 406/420/467/ 468/471 andl20 -B of the IPC. The said criminal complaint was pending before the Court of Sh.A.S. Shergill, JMIC, Chandigarh for consideration on summoning of the accused for 24.7.2008. It was alleged by the complainant that despite having paid the sum of Rs. 2,55,000 to the OPs No. 1 and 2 for the sale consideration of the car, owned by OP No. 5, the complainant did not receive the Registration Certificate of the car in original with the hypothecation clause removed from the previous owner and necessary forms for the transfer of the car to the complainant from the OP No. 5 and thus was constrained not to put to use the said vehicle on a regular basis without the fear of legal prosecution and traffic challans. As on 23.5.2008 the car of the complainant had clocked about 56556 Kms only which is about 482 Kms usage since its purchase in the month of June, 2007 till May, 2008. This fact by itself proves that the vehicle could not be put to any useful purpose by the complainant, since its purchase due to the lack of documentation, which were withheld by OPs No. 1 and 2 in connivance with the OP No. 5. The complainant on one hand not able to use the car in question since June, 2007 while on the other hand the complainant has been burdened with renewing the insurance cover of the vehicle which expired and was renewed on 20.10.2007 by the complainant after paying the premium of Rs. 8,280 and further burdened with high rate of interest which the complainant is paying to OP No. 4. The abovesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

(3.) REPLY was filed by OPs Nos. 1 and 2 and admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was pleaded that the complainant himself was deficient and had not made the entire payment of the car purchased by him. The complainant made a complaint to the Police, where answering OPs stated that the complainant was defaulter and he had not made payment of Rs. 16,500 being the balance sale consideration of the car. It was further pleaded that the answering OPs were always willing tohandover the documents to the complainant after getting their balance payment but the complainant did not paid the balance amount. The Police had also asked the complainant to make the payment and get the documents. It was averred that even if the complainant paid the balance amount in the learned District Forum, the answering OPs would hand over all the papers without any hesitation to the complainant. All other material allegations levelled by the complainant in the complaint were controverted and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.