KEDARNATH vs PAGARIYA AUTO CENTRE

THE present appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and Order in Complaint Case No. 243/2000, passed by the Consumer Forum, Aurangabad.

THE complainant''s case before the Forum is that he had obtained the quotation for purchase of Bajaj M-80 vehicle for the purpose of loan from the respondent No. 1 on 28. 3. 2000. After completing the formalities, he got sanctioned loan from Bank of Rajasthan and the bank issued pay order in the name of the respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 23,704 as per the quotation. It is contended that, when the complainant went to respondent for purchasing vehicle, the respondent demanded Rs. 300 more stating that the price has been increased. It is contended that, various charges shown in the booking form were less than the price quoted in the quotation. It is contended that pay order for an amount of Rs. 23,704 was given, whereas actual price in the booking form was Rs. 23,542. The complainant demanded excess amount, but the respondent refused to return the same. It is also contended that the complainant had asked to issue cover note of Oriental Insurance Company, but the respondent issued cover note of United Insurance Company. The respondent had charged more amount towards insurance charges. Some exchange of words had taken place. The respondent No. 2 abused and threatened the complainant. The complainant left show-room and approached the Jinsi Police Station and filed the complaint. It is contended that on 9. 5. 2000 complainant again went to the Police Station and requested to ask the respondent No. 1 for delivery of the vehicle. Accordingly vehicle was delivered in the police station. It is contended that, the respondents did not issue registration certificate or issued insurance certificate or sale letter. Thus, the vehcle remained ideal for want of documents. Thus, he filed the complaint for total loss of Rs. 76,000. The respondents appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. They denied the contentions raised by the complainant. It is contended that price of the vehicle as on the date was Rs. 21,665, thus same was quoted. It is further contended that on the date of delivery, price was less and thus it was shown as Rs. 21,445. It is also contended that there was a scheme of Accident Janta Policy amounting to Rs. 120 but subsidized by the respondents at Rs. 60 and, therefore, the insurance charges of Rs. 433 were quoted. On the date of delivery of the vehicle, the scheme of Janta Accident Policy was stopped and, therefore, the insurance amount Rs. 372 was charged. The respondents were bound to return difference amount to the Bank and not to the complainant. It is also contended that it was day of Akshay Tritiya, hence there was rush of customers. The complainant wanted privileged and preferential treatment, which the respondents refused and, therefore, the complainant refused to take delivery of the vehicle and thus there was no alternative for the respondents but to return the pay order to the bank after waiting for the complainant up to 9. 5. 2000. It is contended that, the respondents delivered the vehicle to the complainant in the police station. The complainant has promised to instruct the Bank to deliver the pay order of loan amount to the respondents. The complainant took the vehicle but the respondent has not received the pay order. It is contended that, on intervention of Adv. Barlota, the respondent got vehicle insured and registered on 16. 8. 2000. The complainant is using the vehicle. It is registered and insured in the name of the complainant. The complainant had promised in the police station to instruct the bank to deliver the pay order to the respondents, but he has not given such instructions. The respondents also raised the objection regarding jurisdiction of the Forum.

The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties, hold that, the complainant is a consumer and the Forum has jurisdiction to decide the complaint. The Forum also held that, the respondents properly explained the difference in the amount of quotation and booking form. The Forum below relied on the affidavit of Advocate Barlota and dismissed the complaint.

BEING aggrieved by the order of the Forum, the complainant came in appeal. The notices were issued to the appellant as well as respondent. The learned Counsel Mr. S. R. Malani appeared on behalf of the appellant and learned Counsel Mr. V. N. Upadhye appeared on behalf of the respondents.

WE heard both the Counsel at sufficient length. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel. The difference in the amount mentioned in the quotation and the booking form has been properly explained by the respondents. The quotation form discloses that the price on the date of delivery shall be charged. The price of the vehicle as on the date of quotation was Rs. 21,566, which was mentioned in the quotation. On the date of delivery, the price was less and, therefore, it was shown as Rs. 21,445. It is also explained that there was scheme of Janata Accident Policy amounting to Rs. 120 but subsidized by the respondent at Rs. 60 and, therefore, insurance charges was Rs. 433. On the date of delivery of vehicle, the Janata Accident Policy was stopped and, therefore, the insurance amount of Rs. 372 was charged. It is also apparent that, the pay order was delivered by Bank and thus the respondent bound to deliver the difference amount to the Bank. It is also apparent that, when the appellant refused to take delivery and as there was exchange of words in between the complainant and respondents, the respondents were to return the pay order to the bank waiting up to 9. 5. 2000. It has also come on record that, the respondent has got vehicle insured and registered on 16. 8. 2000. The Forum below rightly relied on the affidavit of the Senior Counsel Mr. Barlota. The Forum below has observed "that, the complainant being Advocate made the incidence as prestigious issue, which is outcome of the complaint". The Forum also observed that the complainant has duly received all documents. There was no correspondence by the complainant to the bank regarding no-objection for returning pay order to the respondent. It has also come on record that the complainant has approached the Jinsi Police Station and filed the complaint. The Forum below has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly come to the conclusion that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It is also certain that there is absolutely no evidence led by the complainant to prove that the respondent demanded Rs. 300 more. We do not find any illegality committed by the Forum while dismissing the complaint. No interference is required while exercising the appellate jurisdiction. We pass the following order: ORDER 1. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost. 2. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties.

Appeal dismissed.