IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 15.10.2019 Date of Hearing: 12.12.2024 Date of Decision: 13.02.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 529/2019 IN THE MATTER OF AUTOVIKAS SALES & SERVICE PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS AGM:

SURINDER VASDEVA, 12-A, SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI.

(Through: Purshotam Singh & Associates)

…Appellant VERSUS MR. UDAY VIR SINGH, S/O SHRI CHHIDDU SINGH, R/O 167/188, VIPIN GARDEN, DELHI- 110059.

ALSO AT:

SHOP AT PLOT NO. 454, KAKROLA HOUSING COMPLEX, MAIN NAJAFGARH ROAD DELHI-110059.

EARLIER AT:

RZ-101, GALI NO. 8, BAJAJ ENCLAVE, KAKROLA MOR, NEW DELHI-110059.

(Through: K.B.B. Singh, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGARWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL)

Present: Ms. Kumari Archana (email id - adv.k.archana@gmail.com), counsel for Appellant.

Respondent in person along with Mr. K. B. B. Singh, counsel for the Respondent (Email: kbbsingh23@gmail.com).

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1…The complainant was approached by one of the agents of the OP and after deliberation complainant agreed to buy a vehicle Travera bearing No. HR 55HT5564 model of 2008 on installment and paid Rs. 5,000/- as booking amount on 25.02.2008. The complainant in total paid an amount Rs. 1,95,000/- against receipt of Rs. 1,60,000/- OP assured complainant that remaining amount would be arranged through ICICI Bank Ltd. The complainant deposited necessary documents alongwith ITRs to retain loan. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant alongwith papers indicating that vehicle was in hypothecation to the ICICl Bank Ltd. The grievance of the complainant is that after a period of two months he was called for inspection of the vehicle, but OP detained the vehicle for 15 days and later told the complainant that he has failed to get loan sanctioned from ICICI Bank Ltd. The staff of OP got some paper signed from complainant for the purpose of advancing of loan and mischievously deposited one cheque of Rs. 4,86,000/- in the account of complainant which was returned unpaid. Therefore, on 14.01.2019 some miscreant visited the residence of complainant and forced him to write a letter stating that the complainant was returning his vehicle for non payment. The OP has snatched the vehicle from the complainant without any justifiable cause nor did return the amount paid by complainant. Therefore, present complaint with the prayer for directing OP to return a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- with interest to the complainant and compensation for harassment.

2. OP filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the complainant was not a consumer, and no cause of action ever arose in his favour on merits. OP admitted the sale of the vehicle to the complainant but stated that it had no role to play for sanction of loan from ICICI Bank Ltd. for the complainant. It is further stated that after completing requisite formalities about loan to be sanctioned by ICICI ltd. OP delivered the vehicle in question to complainant. On refusal of loan to the complainant, the complainant himself visited OP on 15.2.2008 and tendered cheque for Rs, 4,86,304/- dated 30.12.2008 in fayour of OP however, the said cheque on presentation to the banker was dishonored, OP further stated that complainant himself handed over the vehicle to OP on account of non payment of sale price. Here there was no deficiency on the part of OP. The complaint should be dismissed.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 28.08.2019, whereby it held as under:

“4. We have heard the Counsel for parties and perused.

5. Thecontroversy reveals aroundthe issue as to whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claim or not. We have seen the documents filed on record by the complainant whereby he paid booking amount of Rs. 5,000/- to OP on 11.04.20018 and another amount of Rs