ADARSH KUMAR Vs. SARUP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal received by transfer from Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 22.11.2001 in complaint case No. 82 of 2001: Smt. Saroop Kaur v. M/s. Chhibber Motors and Another.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that OP, who were authorized agents of Chetak Scooter, floated a scheme for Chetak Scooter on instalments -cum -lottery draw in November 1994 and as per the scheme, each member was to pay an instalment of Rs. 800 per month and one lucky draw was to be taken out each month. Further, as per the scheme, the lucky member, whose name came in the draw, was not to pay any further instalment and he was entitled to get the scooter from the OPs. Even a member, whose name did not come in the draw and who had paid all the instalments, was also entitled to get the scooter from the OPs. It was averred that the complainant had paid all the 30 instalments i.e. full price of the scooter to OP No. 1 through its sister concern but the OPs neither gave him the scooter nor refunded the amount deposited by her, which was to the tune of Rs. 24,000. As per the complainant, she requested OPs number of times to supply the scooter as per their terms and conditions of the scheme or in alternative to refund the price of scooter amounting to Rs. 24,000 with interest @ 18% per annum but the OP ultimately refused to supply the scooter or to refund the amount in the month of March, 2001. Alleging this act to be a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant filed the complaint seeking directions to the OPs to supply a scooter to the complainant or in alternative to refund the price of scooter amounting to Rs. 24,000 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment. The complainant had also sought compensation amounting to Rs. 20,000 on account of mental tension and harassment besides Rs. 2,000 as costs of litigation.

(3.) OP No. 1 in its written reply firstly took preliminary objection regarding the complaint being filed beyond the period of limitation. OP No. 1 pleaded that it was an authorized agent of Chetak Scooters and they had floated scheme for giving scooters on instalments -cum -lottery draw. It further pleaded that the scheme was run by it in 1998 and not in the year 1994, as averred by the complainant. It was asserted that OP No. 1 had no concern with Chhibber Sons Savings and Finance, Kot Kapura and it had not received any instalment through OP No. 2. As per OP No. 1, it was not liable to pay any scooter or alleged amount of Rs. 24,000 to the complainant. Further pleading that the averments in the complaint had falsely been made and that there was no deficiency in service on its part, OP No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.