State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sarwan Kumar Son Of Shri Jagdish Chander ... vs Vivek M.S. Yadav R/O Second Floor, ... on 1 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.449 of 2006 Date of Institution: 24.02.2006 Date of Decision: 01.02.2012 Sarwan Kumar son of Shri Jagdish Chander R/o Village Dhotar Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa. Appellant (Complainant) Versus Vivek M.S. Yadav R/o Second Floor, Darshan Chasmaghar, in front of Union Bank, City Thana Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa at present 23, Purani Municipal Committee, Sirsa, District Sirsa. Respondent (OP) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Dr. Rekha Sharma, Member. For the Parties: Shri Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for appellant. Shri B.S. Mittal, Advocate for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.01.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sirsa whereby complaint bearing No.205/2005 filed by complainant (appellant herein) against the respondent-opposite party has been dismissed.
Complainant had purchased a Mahindera & Mahinder Jeep bearing registration No.MWV-4323 Model 1984 and same was financed with the respondent-opposite party for Rs.49,000/- which was to be paid in 25 equal instalments of Rs.3250/- per month. The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that the opposite party prepared the payment of schedule of Rs.3250/- on higher side on the basis of unnatural interest upon the amount of loan. Complainant further alleged that the opposite party charge excess amount in respect of the financed amount and also forcibly snatched the jeep from the complainant. Thus, the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It was stated that a sum of Rs.38,580/- was to be recovered from the complainant and when the said amount was demanded from the complainant, the complaint was filed as a counter blast. Thus, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum found no substance in complainants version and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant-complainant, it has been argued that the respondent-opposite party charged excess amount towards the loan amount and also snatched the vehicle illegally.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-opposite party has argued that the complainant levelled false allegations against the opposite party. No F.I.R. or report against the opposite party was lodged with the police with respect to the alleged forcible re-possession of the jeep and in fact the vehicle was sold by the complainant to one Surender Kumar son of Des Raj and executed an affidavit in this regard. Surender Kumar had applied for transfer of the ownership before Registering Authority (MV) for which complainant never raised any objection.
The contention raised on behalf of the respondent-opposite party is attractive under the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been established on the record that the jeep in question was purchased by the complainant directly from Krishan Kumar son of Manphool. The opposite party as well as Surender Kumar son of Des Raj tendered their affidavits in evidence wherein they rebutted the allegations of the complainant but those witnesses have not been examined by the complainant. Thus, the version of the opposite party remained un-rebutted on the record. It has been established on the record that the complainant levelled false allegations against the respondent-opposite party.
In view of our aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed.
Announced: (Justice R.S. Madan) 01.02.2012 President (Dr. Rekha Sharma) Member