State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahindra And Mahindra Financial ... vs Paramjit Singh on 6 July, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 514 of 2017
Date of institution : 03.07.2017
Date of decision : 06.07.2017
1. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Rupnagar,
Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through its Manager.
2. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Branch 1st
Floor, Simran Complex Nangal Chandigarh Highway, Near
Navjiwan Hospital, Nangal Township PS and Tehsil Nangal,
District Rupnagar through its Branch Manager.
....Appellants/Ops
Versus
Paramjit Singh, aged about 49 years son of Sh. Jagan Nath,
resident of Village Passiwal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
02.06.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. H.P.S. Kochhar, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
First Appeal No. 514 of 2017 2 The appellants/Ops (hereinafter referred as Ops) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 03 dated 20.1.2017 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and Ops were directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. It was further ordered to pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from 19.1.2017 till the date of payment.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the Ops on the averments that Devinder Kumar son of Sadhu Ram had purchased new vehicle Mahindra Maximo bearing registration No. PB-12-O-8490 from Raj Motors, Chhoti Gando Chandigarh Road, Rupnagar and got loan for the purchase of the abovesaid vehicle from Op No. 1. He could not pay the loan amount and Op No. 1 had taken possession of the same. On 18.11.2014, the complainant purchased the abovesaid vehicle from Op No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. It was the duty of the Ops to complete all the documents and registration certificate. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant had paid Rs. 11,000/- to Op No. 1 for the purpose of preparing registration documents in favour of the complainant. Op No. 1 assured the complainant that First Appeal No. 514 of 2017 3 registration of the vehicle will be done within a period of 2 months but it was not done. He requested Ops to issue the necessary documents/ registration certificate but all in vain. He moved application before the SSP, Rupnagar on 12.8.2015 against Op No. 1. Op No. 1 appeared before the SHO, Ropar and compromised the matter where he admitted that the complainant had paid Rs. 1,80,000/- and Rs. 11,000/- for completion of all the documents and it was further settled that complainant will further pay Rs. 15,000/- to Op No. 1 which were paid to Op No. 1 on 28.6.2015, the date of fixed but Op No. 1 flatly refused to give receipt of the same but Op No. 1 failed to complete the documents and delivered the same to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking directions against the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for harassing the complainant mentally and physically and financially, Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, Ops filed written reply through Anurag Sharma of Legal Department of the Company taking legal objections that the complainant is not a consumer as no service of any kind to prepare the registration certificate etc. was promised to the complainant except that after the sale, the complainant was to issue NOC, which was issued on 5.12.2014 and Form No. 35 and complainant had given notarized affidavit dated 18.11.2014 that complainant undertakes to transfer the registration certificate in his name at his responsibility, therefore, the complaint is without merit. First Appeal No. 514 of 2017 4 On merits also, it was admitted that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle from Ops but it was the duty of the complainant to complete all documents/registration certificate etc. Ops were to issue NOC, which was issued. It was denied that a sum of Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 6500/- were paid by the complainant to the Ops as alleged in the complaint. There was no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum, the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, affidavit of Sudhir Sharma Ex. CW-2/A and documents Exs. C-1 to C-13. On the other hand, Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Anurag Sharma, Authorized Representation Ex. Op-A and documents Ex. Op-1 to Op-4.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by the Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed after observing that as per letter dated 18.11.2014 (Ex. C-1, Jorawar Singh was asked to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant and that they had handed over NOC and Form No. 35 to the complainant in the year 2014 and Mandip Sharma had received the said documents from them on behalf of the complainant but complainant had never authorized Mandip Sharma to collect the said documents. Mandip Sharma being employee of Op No. 1 hand over NOC and Form First Appeal No. 514 of 2017 5 No. 35 after a delay of almost two years, accordingly, the complaint was allowed and compensation as referred above was allowed to the complainant against Ops.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/Ops have filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the file.
Miscellaneous Application No. 1459 of 2017
9. The counsel for the appellants have moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to place on record extract of NOC register showing the signatures of Paramjit Singh complainant to get the documents. Firstly that document was with the Ops. No reason has been assigned what were the circumstances why this document was not earlier produced in the evidence before the District Forum and further mere entry in the register itself may not be sufficient to prove handing over the documents i.e. NOC and Form No. 35 to the complainant when in the written reply in para No. 5, they have stated that the documents were taken by Mandip Sharma on behalf of the complainant and original documents issued by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited was produced and its photocopy retained in the file, it shows that it was received by Mr. Mandip Sharma. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the application, the same is hereby dismissed. MAIN APPEAL First Appeal No. 514 of 2017 6
10. It was argued by the counsel for the appellants that documents were issued by the Ops on 5.12.2014 and these were received by Mandip Sharma, who was not their employee but employee of H.D.F.C. No doubt that documents have been received by Mandip Sharma from Ops but once it is an admitted case that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from Ops and paid the entire sale consideration amount then it was their duty to issue NOC and Form No. 35 to the complainant for the purpose of registration, in case the registration was not to be done through Ops. However, the document placed on the record shows that the documents were received by one Mandip Sharma. It is admitted case that the complainant was also moving the applications against Mandip Sharma to the Police, therefore, he had no authority to collect the documents on behalf of the complainant.
11. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellants was unable to refer to any document vide which the complainant authorized Mandip Sharma to collect the documents from Ops on his behalf. The documents were received by the complainant on 5.9.2016 whereas it should have been issued to the complainant in the year 2014 when the vehicle was purchased, therefore, there was delay of 2 years on the part of Ops to hand over the required documents for which the complainant had to suffer the financial loss, mental and physical harassment and for that a sum of Rs. 1 Lac allowed as compensation to the First Appeal No. 514 of 2017 7 complainant, which in our opinion seems to be just and reasonable.
12. Sequel to the above, counsel for the appellants was unable to make any point for admission of the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed in limine.
13. The appellant No. 1 had deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount along with interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the concerned District Forum, after the expiry of 90 days, from the despatch of the certified copy of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court; for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
14. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER July 06, 2017.
as