LAWS(NCD)-2014-1-79

ULTIMATE AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD Vs. KHARATI LAL HANDA

Decided On January 27, 2014
Ultimate Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Kharati Lal Handa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short Act') there is challenge to order dated -.4.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 203 of 2008.

(2.) Brief facts are that Respondent/ complainant approached the petitioner/ opposite party in July, 2007 for purchasing Santro car against loan arrangement. The officials of petitioner directed him to approach ICICI Bank officials who had installed their counter in the premises of the petitioner. Respondent was told to complete certain formalities by way of submitting certain documents and to pay an amount of Rs. 68,440 (25% of the total ex-showroom price) for advancement of the loan. Consequently, he completed all the formalities and paid Rs. 68,440 in the month of July. Thereafter, ICICI Bank sanctioned loan amount to the respondent in the month of July.

(3.) It was further averred that petitioner had offered a scheme of rebate of Rs. 10,000 on total car price at the disposal of the old car at the time of purchasing of the said car. Consequently he had sold the car bearing No. HR-3C-5600 to Sh. Parkash Chand Sharma of District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and registering authority, Panchkula, issued NOC on 24.9.2007 in his favour. Respondent had taken delivery of the vehicle in the month of July, 2007 from the petitioner and he was allotted temporary No. CH-12T-6608 valid for one month from the date of issuance. However, sale letter was not issued to him, although he approached the petitioner several times for issuance of the same to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority, Chandigarh. Although he had been visiting the petitioner regularly since August, 2007, yet it did not entertain the request for issuance of sale letter. Even legal notice dated 31.7.2007 served upon petitioner had no effect. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.