RAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 2814 of 2013 dated 08.01.2018.

(2.) In the Complaint case, on 17.10.2010, the Petitioner purchased a Mahindra Alfa three wheeler from Respondent No.2 for Rs.1,52,175.00 remitting a cash of Rs.47,900.00.Further, Rs.1,10,000.00 was financed by Respondent No. 3 and this amount was directly paid to Respondent No. 2.The vehicle was delivered to the Petitioner, but Respondent No.2 did not provide any sale receipt of the vehicle to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, therefore, could neither register the vehicle nor could use it and the vehicle got junked due to which he suffered loss. The Petitioner sent a written Complaint to the Respondents for not providing the sale letter, but in vain. The Petitioner also sent a legal notice on 15.01.2011 through his counsel by registered post but till date neither the sale letter nor reply to the legal notice was given. Complaint was, therefore, filed.

(3.) Respondent No.2 filed written statement in which he contended that Respondent No.2 was ready to provide the sale letter. As requested by the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 sent the sale letter to Mahindra & Mahindra Company for financing, but later, the Petitioner wrote a letter seeking finance from Sriram Finance Company. Thus, the Petitioner had himself committed a mistake. The Petitioner filed the Complaint with an intention not to pay the instalments. When the paper came to Respondent No.2 from Sriram Finance Company, then several messages were sent to the Petitioner to receive the sale letter but the Petitioner was not ready to accept the sale letter. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 sent the sale letter through registered post in the name of the Petitioner but the Petitioner did not accept the sale letter and returned the same. The Petitioner was using the vehicle and making profit from the vehicle. The Petitioner instituted the Complaint before the Forum for not paying the money. For registration of the vehicle, the finance company took the original receipt on 05.09.2011. Thus, the Complaint of the Petitioner was liable to be rejected.