MADANLAI SAHU Vs. MANAGER, UMANG FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 18.05.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No. 08/2011 where by complaint of the appellant herein, alleging deficiency in service against the respondents, has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that the complaint had purchased a four wheeler vehicle M -4 from OP no 1 /dealer on 26.11.2007 for total sum of Rs.2,77,000/ - when Rs.50,000/ - was deposited by him as margin money and Rs.2,20,000/ - was paid by way of finance made available by OP No. 21 finance company. The chassis No. of the vehicle was 19002459J/07 and engine No. was 30002602. Complainant averred that at the time of delivery of the vehicle, gate pass and delivery receipt were only provided and no documents related to the vehicle such as registration certificate, fitness certificate and insurance certificate were provided. Complainant averred that the time of delivery of the vehicle, gate pass and delivery receipt were only provided and no documents related to the vehicle such as registration certificate, fitness certificate and insurance certificate were provided. Complainant averred that the vehicle was delivered to OPl/dealer for routine servicing on 20.03.2008 and alleged that during servicing, original chassis and gear box of the vehicle were replaced without his consent. Complainant further averred that another vehicle purchased by his son was forcibly repossessed by the OP No. 1/dealer and its chassis bearing No.T - 19002432J/07 was fitted in his vehicle. Complainant averred that his vehicle was in quite good condition when it was brought to the workshop of OP No. 1 for routine servicing and aforementioned fact about replacement of chassis and gear box came to his knowledge when he faced frequent problems in running of the vehicle subsequent to servicing of the vehicle. Due to aforesaid reasons he could not repay the loan installments to OP No. 2/ finance company so it had been reminding him by way of notices to pay installments and ultimately its authorized employee Mr. Rupesh Nag repossessed the vehicle on 13.10.2008 and got executed a document forcibly from him about delivery of the vehicle to him wherein the chassis No. mentioned was other than what was provided at the time of sale. Complainant alleged that the respondents having found him to be a simple villager induced him with mutual connivance to buy the vehicle after finance and pressurized got Rs.50,000/ - deposited thereby causing him financial loss to that extent. Complainant prayed before the District Forum seeking direction to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/ - deposited towards margin money with interest @ 12% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 towards mental and financial harassment with cost and also to return the post -dated cheques deposited.

(3.) OP No. 1, while refuting other averments of the complainant, averred that the complainant had purchased two vehicles from it after having been financed by OP No. 2 financer despite giving him proper understanding that purchase of two vehicles would cause heavy financial burden on him Cost of the vehicle was Rs.2,34,860/ -, registration charges was Rs.31,500/ - insurance charges was Rs.11,000/ - so in all total Rs.2,77,360/ - was payable out of which Rs. 2,20,000/ - was financed and balance Rs. 57,360/ - was to be deposited as down payment by the complainant. The financed amount was repayable by way of 24 equated installments out of which first installment was payable in advance and thereafter remaining amount was payable in monthly installments. OP -1 averred that the complainant had purchased two vehicles one in his own name and another in his son's name. Rs.1,14,720/ -was required as down payment against the two vehicles but the complainant deposited only Rs 1,00,000/ - as such balance amount Rs.14,720/ - was not deposited. Moreover after deduction of amount towards first installment from the financed amount, only Rs.2,05,000/ - was received from OP -2 firiancer. Out of the total amount deposited by the complainant, registration of only one vehicle in his name could be done, having registration No.CG -07/T.C.1627. Due to deduction of Rs.14,720/ - towards first installment from the financed amount and also due to short of down payment total amount, Rs.38,720/ - was less received, therefore registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant's son could not be done despite deduction of Rs.31,500/ - so OP No. 3 has still to receive balance Rs.7,220/ - and besides that repairing charges for the vehicle of complainant's son which amounted to Rs.24,788/ - were also not paid as such in all Rs.31,008/ - was recoverable. As against the aforesaid amount, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.26,000/ - only in two installments of Rs. 10,000/ - and Rs. 16,000/ - so for that purpose he executed a document No. P -6 dated 15.03.2008, but even then Rs. 10,000/ - was short paid. OP No. 1 has averred that since the right of ownership in respect of the vehicle under hire purchase agreement remains with the financer till the payment of loan so after registration of the questioned vehicle, OP No. 1/dealer provided relevant documents to OP No. 2/financer and due to legal necessity, despite the shortage of money in the deposited amount, insurance of both the vehicles was done and papers were provided to or No. 2/financer. OF No. 1 denied that another chassis No. T -19002132J/07 replaced in the questioned vehicle when it was brought to the workshop of OP No. 1 for routine servicing. The factual position was that the complainant had brought the vehicle in his son's name for repair to the workshop on 14.12.2007 due to accident and since repair due to accident was not covered under warranty, the repairing charges were chargeable. The repair work was undertaken on the consent of the complainant to the effect that repair charges would be borne by him, so accordingly repair work of son's vehicle was done on 19.12.2007 for amount Rs.24,788/ -, but that too the complainant did not pay. Complainant defaulted to deposit second loan installments onward in respect of both the vehicles, so he surrendered the vehicle in his son's name with OP No. 2 on 15.03.2008. As the vehicle was surrendered on 15.03.2008, prior to 20.03.2008 the date on which the vehicle was stated to have been brought for repair, as such the question of replacing its chassis does not arise. OP No. 1 has averred that the complainant has suppressed facts deliberately and filed the false complaint so prayed for dismissal of the complaint.