KEDARNATH Vs. PAGARIYA AUTO CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.