Haryana

StateCommission

A/553/2016

DHEERAJ RAHEJA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AADIT MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM SINGH

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :     553 of 2016

Date of Institution:     17.06.2016

Date of Decision :     20.07.2016

 

Dheeraj Raheja son of Sh. Chuhar Ram, resident of Village Bhallaur, Tehsil Bapoli, District Panipat.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Aadit Motors Private Limited, Sector 8, Near Toll Plaza, G.T. Road, Panipat through its Managing Director.

 

2.      Khushi Ford, A Unit of Aadit Motors Private Limited, Sector 8, Near Toll Plaza, G.T.  Road, Panipat through its Managing Director/Proprietor.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Sawan Chaudhary, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal has been filed by Dheeraj Raheja-complainant, against the order dated May 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      The complainant purchased a car Ford Figo 1.4D make for Rs.5,00,900/- on September 16^th, 2013 from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties assured the complainant that they will get the car register from the concerned Registering Authority, which they failed to do so.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

3.      The opposite parties in their reply denied the averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The contention raised by learned counsel for the complainant that it was for the opposite parties to arrange for permanent Registration Certificate of the car from the Registering Authority, cannot be accepted as it is purchaser of a car, who has to apply for getting the car registered with the Registering Authority by filling up necessary forms etcetera. The complainant has not been able to produce any document on the file to prove that opposite party No.1 had ever agreed to get the car registered. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

5.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.  

 

 

Announced 20.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK