w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Prem Arora v/s Partap Auto India Pvt. Ltd.

    Revision Petition No. 3141 of 2018

    Decided On, 24 January 2019

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Swati Menon, Proxy Counsel for Anjum Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------



Judgment Text

The complainant allegedly purchased a scooter make Bajaj from the respondent for about Rs.25,000/-. According to her, a cheque of Rs.25,000/- was also issued to her. The said cheque purported to be issued by Okara Agro Industries. The cheque was dated 13.2.2016. When presented to the bank, the cheque was dishonored with the remarks that there was no such account with the bank. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. Okara Agro Industries which had issued the cheque was not impleaded as a party to the consumer complaint.

2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which denied having given to above-referred cheque to the complainant. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant / petitioner the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 19.7.2018, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the advertisement dated 19.1.1998 captioned 'Buy A Bajaj Scooter Now Get Rs.25000/-'. The advertisement to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

'To celebrate the sale of 15 million vehicles, Bajaj Auto now gives you an ICICI Money Multiplier Bond with a maturity value of Rs.25,000/- with any model of Bajaj Scooter you buy. Choose from the Bajaj Chetak Super, Classic, Bravo and Legend and watch your savings grow. You can also opt to buy your favourite scooter under the 9.9% Dream Scheme (at select dealers only). Exchange facility also available at select dealerships.'

4. It is evident that the offer contained in the advertisement was made by Bajaj Auto and not by the respondent. Though the respondent is stated to be an authorized dealer of Bajaj Auto, whose name appears in the list of the dealers given in the advertisement, the fact remains that the offer was made by Bajaj Auto and not by the respondent. Therefore, it was necessary for the petitioner/complainant to implead Bajaj Auto as a party to the consumer complaint. The consumer complaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

5. The case of the petitioner /complainant is that the cheque in question was given to her by the respondent. There is no documentary evidence of the said cheque having been given to the petitioner/complainant by the respondent M/s Pratap Auto India Pvt. Ltd. The cheque, as noted earlier was drawn by Okara Agro Industries on ICICI Bank. Therefore, it was necessary for the petitioner/complainant to implead Okara Agro Industries as a party to the consumer complaint. That having not been done, the State Commission, in my opinion, was justified in dismissing the consumer complaint.

6. As noted earlier, the offer contained in the advertisement was for issuance of ICICI Multiplier Bond, whereas the grievance of the petitioner/complainant is with regard to dishonor of a cheque issued by Okara Agro Industries. It is not explained how and why a post-dated cheque of Rs.25,000/- was accepted by the petitioner/complainant from the respondent when the scheme envisaged issuance of a Multiplier Bond and that too by Bajaj Auto. Therefore, from whatever angle I may look at it, no liability, in my opinion, can be fastened upon the respondent on account of dishonour of the above-referred cheque issued by Okara Agro Industries.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

assed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the consumer complaint will not come in the way of the petitioner taking such action as may be open to it in law against Okara Agro Industries.
O R