GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. U T CAR POINT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased an Indica DLS car bearing No. HR -20 -J -7108 from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.2,78,000/ - and made token payment of Rs.30,000/ -. As per the complainant, it was settled that OP No.1 would arrange No Objection Certificate from the concerned Registering Authority by 13.3.2006, consequent to which, the Complainant was to pay the full and final consideration. It was alleged that an agreement dated 26.2.2006 regarding the aforesaid deal was got done by OP No.1 with one Tajinder Singh, who was introduced as the owner of the car. Further, it was averred by the complainant that on 13.3.2006, OP No.1 did not provide No Objection Certificate to him and the complainant was told to collected the same on 30.03.2006. The complainant, it was averred, paid another sum of Rs.2,30,000/ - as full payment on the instance of OP No.1 making total paid amount of Rs.2,60,000/ - to OP No.1 but in the receipt/agreement (P -1) the amount was shown to be only Rs.2,50,000/ -. The complainant alleged that as the insurance of the car had expired, it was settled that both the Complainant and OPs would contribute half -half amount each towards the purchase of the insurance policy. As per the complainant, OPs did not contribute to the extent of half of the amount of insurance policy as agreed and the Complainant had to obtain the insurance policy by paying full from his pocket as he was made to spend Rs.9563/ - on the insurance. Further the case of the complainant is that on 30.3.2006, when he approached OP No.1 to collect No Objection Certificate , he was again told to come after a week for the same. The allegation of the complainant is that OP No.1 kept on dilly -dallying the matter on one pretext or the other and thus, he suffered immense mental and physical harassment even after paying the full consideration towards the aforesaid car. As a last resort, the complainant served a legal notice (C -2) upon OP No.1 but to no avail, hence, the present complaint had been filed.

(2.) THE version of OP No.1 is that they were mediator in this case and introduced the Complainant to OP No.2. OP No.1 had denied the averment regarding receipt of any amount from the Complainant. OP No.1 pleaded that all the transactions took place between the Complainant and OP No.2 and it was only a witness to the alleged agreement. It further asserted that the agreement in question was not binding upon them as they had no concern with the transactions or dealing between the Complainant and the OP No.2. Pleading no deficiency on its part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) THE version of OP No.2 is that he was instructed and authorized by one Sh. Jagannath Baweja of Hissar in the month of February 2006 to sell his car in question and on the said instructions, he approached Sh. Neeraj of M/s U.T. Car Point, who deals in selling and purchasing of cars and parked the vehicle for sale at M/s U.T. Car Point. OP No.2 next pleaded that on 26.2.2006, OP No.1 introduced the Complainant with OP No.2 and after bargaining, the Complainant agreed to purchase the said car for an amount of Rs.2,78,000/ - and a token money of Rs.30,000/ - was handed over to OP No.1. This OP further pleaded that at the time of deal, the Complainant agreed to pay the entire balance amount of Rs.2,48,000/ - on 13.3.2006. OP No.2 also asserted that all the documentation work for the transfer of the said car in the name of Complainant was to be done by OP No.1 and No Objection Certificate from the concerned Registration Authority was also to be arranged by OP No.1. It was asserted that no copy of agreement -cum -receipt was ever given to OP No.1 by OP No.1 despite number of requests. On 13.3.2006, it was pleaded, OP No.1 was given only an amount of Rs.2,56,000/ - instead of agreed amount of Rs.2,78,000/ -. Further, as per this OP, he was told by OP No.1 that the Complainant had taken the delivery of the car and had retained Rs.18,000/ - as OP No.1 had failed to complete the documentation work and obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned Registration Authority for the transfer of the car in the name of the Complainant and charged Rs.4,000/ - on account of his commission. It was next asserted this OP that in April, 2006, the Complainant along with OP No.1 approached him and after showing their inability to obtain NCRB report and NOC, assured OP No.2 that they would pay the entire balance amount of Rs.18,000/ - if OP No.2 would be able to obtain NCRB report and NOC for the car in question. OP No.2, it was pleaded, was able to get the report of NCRB and Registration Certificate of the said car on 30.5.2006. This OP, it was further pleaded, got obtained No Objection Certificate on 2.8.2006 and handed over all original documents to OP No.1 on 4.8.2006. Pleading that despite serving of legal notice upon the Complainant on 12.10.2006, he was not given the balance amount of Rs.18,000/ - by the complainant or OP No.1 and further pleading no deficiency in service on his party, OP No.2 had also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.