- (1.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased an Indica DLS car bearing No. HR -20 -J -7108 from OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.2,78,000/ - and made token payment of Rs.30,000/ -. As per the complainant, it was settled that OP No.1 would arrange No Objection Certificate from the concerned Registering Authority by 13.3.2006, consequent to which, the Complainant was to pay the full and final consideration. It was alleged that an agreement dated 26.2.2006 regarding the aforesaid deal was got done by OP No.1 with one Tajinder Singh, who was introduced as the owner of the car. Further, it was averred by the complainant that on 13.3.2006, OP No.1 did not provide No Objection Certificate to him and the complainant was told to collected the same on 30.03.2006. The complainant, it was averred, paid another sum of Rs.2,30,000/ - as full payment on the instance of OP No.1 making total paid amount of Rs.2,60,000/ - to OP No.1 but in the receipt/agreement (P -1) the amount was shown to be only Rs.2,50,000/ -. The complainant alleged that as the insurance of the car had expired, it was settled that both the Complainant and OPs would contribute half -half amount each towards the purchase of the insurance policy. As per the complainant, OPs did not contribute to the extent of half of the amount of insurance policy as agreed and the Complainant had to obtain the insurance policy by paying full from his pocket as he was made to spend Rs.9563/ - on the insurance. Further the case of the complainant is that on 30.3.2006, when he approached OP No.1 to collect No Objection Certificate , he was again told to come after a week for the same. The allegation of the complainant is that OP No.1 kept on dilly -dallying the matter on one pretext or the other and thus, he suffered immense mental and physical harassment even after paying the full consideration towards the aforesaid car. As a last resort, the complainant served a legal notice (C -2) upon OP No.1 but to no avail, hence, the present complaint had been filed.
(2.) THE version of OP No.1 is that they were mediator in this case and introduced the Complainant to OP No.2. OP No.1 had denied the averment regarding receipt of any amount from the Complainant. OP No.1 pleaded that all the transactions took place between the Complainant and OP No.2 and it was only a witness to the alleged agreement. It further asserted that the agreement in question was not binding upon them as they had no concern with the transactions or dealing between the Complainant and the OP No.2. Pleading no deficiency on its part, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(3.) THE version of OP No.2 is that he was instructed and authorized by one Sh. Jagannath Baweja of Hissar in the month of February 2006 to sell his car in question and on the said instructions, he approached Sh. Neeraj of M/s U.T. Car Point, who deals in selling and purchasing of cars and parked the vehicle for sale at M/s U.T. Car Point. OP No.2 next pleaded that on 26.2.2006, OP No.1 introduced the Complainant with OP No.2 and after bargaining, the Complainant agreed to purchase the said car for an amount of Rs.2,78,000/ - and a token money of Rs.30,000/ - was handed over to OP No.1. This OP further pleaded that at the time of deal, the Complainant agreed to pay the entire balance amount of Rs.2,48,000/ - on 13.3.2006. OP No.2 also asserted that all the documentation work for the transfer of the said car in the name of Complainant was to be done by OP No.1 and No Objection Certificate from the concerned Registration Authority was also to be arranged by OP No.1. It was asserted that no copy of agreement -cum -receipt was ever given to OP No.1 by OP No.1 despite number of requests. On 13.3.2006, it was pleaded, OP No.1 was given only an amount of Rs.2,56,000/ - instead of agreed amount of Rs.2,78,000/ -. Further, as per this OP, he was told by OP No.1 that the Complainant had taken the delivery of the car and had retained Rs.18,000/ - as OP No.1 had failed to complete the documentation work and obtain No Objection Certificate from the concerned Registration Authority for the transfer of the car in the name of the Complainant and charged Rs.4,000/ - on account of his commission. It was next asserted this OP that in April, 2006, the Complainant along with OP No.1 approached him and after showing their inability to obtain NCRB report and NOC, assured OP No.2 that they would pay the entire balance amount of Rs.18,000/ - if OP No.2 would be able to obtain NCRB report and NOC for the car in question. OP No.2, it was pleaded, was able to get the report of NCRB and Registration Certificate of the said car on 30.5.2006. This OP, it was further pleaded, got obtained No Objection Certificate on 2.8.2006 and handed over all original documents to OP No.1 on 4.8.2006. Pleading that despite serving of legal notice upon the Complainant on 12.10.2006, he was not given the balance amount of Rs.18,000/ - by the complainant or OP No.1 and further pleading no deficiency in service on his party, OP No.2 had also prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The learned District Forum in its analysis of the complaint and after recording the contentions of the complainant that the amount was paid to OP No.1 and further that OP No.1 is the signatory of the receipt (Annexure C -1) as a witness and further assurance given by OP No.1 for completing all the documentation work for the transfer of the said car in the name of the complainant, the learned District Forum was of clear view that NOC from the registration authority and NCRB report from the police were to be procured by OP No.1 for the transfer of the car in favour of the complainant. The learned District Forum further recorded that admittedly, OP No.1 was a car dealer, who knew as to what documents were required for obtaining NOC for the transfer of the car. The learned District Forum further disbelieving the contention of OP No.1 regarding the non -supply of paper prints of the engine and chassis number by the complainant resulting into delaying in issuance of NOC, observed that the complainant must have obtained the paper prints on 26.02.2006 itself when the car was parked at his premises by OP No.2 and the agreement for the sale of the car was entered into. The learned District Forum further observed that it was incumbent upon OP No.1 to obtain NOC from the concerned registration authority on 13.03.2006 itself. In the view of learned District Forum, OP No.1 was grossly deficient in not obtaining the paper prints during the period from 26.02.2006 to 13.03.2006 when the car remained parked at its premises. The learned District further recorded that OP No.1 was also deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant for obtaining the said certificates. The learned District Forum also disbelieved the contention of OP No.1 that due to non payment of Rs.18,000/ - by the complainant, OP No.1 could not obtain the NOC. It was recorded that the payment of Rs.18,000/ - was only to be released to OP No.1 on its delivering NOC and NCRB report to the complainant. Holding deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint only qua OP No.1 and directed it to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.30,000/ - as compensation within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The learned District Forum also held the complainant liable to pay an amount of Rs.18,000/ - to Sh. Tajinder Singh as and when the payment is received from OP -1. OP -1 was further directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2,500/ - towards cost of proceedings. The order was directed to be complied with by OP No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of its certified copy failing which the OP No.1 was held liable to pay the complainant penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.09.2006 till actual realization.;