Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/51/2023

Abhishek Pratap SIngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Alfa Wheels Deal - Opp.Party(s)

Keerti Sandhu, Jatin Bansal & Sahil Sharma Adv.

14 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint	:	51 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	20.06.2023
Date of Decision	:	14.05.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Abhishek Partap Singh, S/o Ajay Partap Singh, R/o House No.51, Sector-48C, Chandigarh.

 

  ….Complainant.

Versus

 

1.      Alfa Wheels Deal, Plot No.592, JLPL Industrial Area, Sector 82, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, through its Authorised Person Jasjot Singh.

 

2.      Jasjot Singh, Authroised Person, Plot No.592, JLPL Industrial Area, Sector 82, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali.

         

          Also at S.C.O. No.63, Back Side Entry, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

       

 

….Opposite Parties.

 

3.      Suraj Kumar, S/o Rajesh, R/o Kitlana, Bhiwani, Haryana, 127309.

 

….Proforma Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                 MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Argued By:-       

Sh. Jatin Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. G.S. Gera, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Opposite Party No.3 already exparte vide order dated 21.08.2023.

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

Brief facts :-

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant   challenging unfair consideration u/s 47(1)(a)(ii), although the consideration paid is less than ₹50 Lakhs. It has been alleged that the complainant purchased a second hand car i.e. Audi A-6 on 24.10.2022 from the opposite parties for ₹10,20,000/- out of which ₹1,80,000/- was paid in cash. It is alleged that just after four days of its purchase, he started noticing certain defects in car. On 28.10.2022, he approached the opposite parties for rectification of those defects but they refused to do so. However, it was advised by the opposite parties that if the complainant was in urgency then he could get the defects removed from outside and the opposite parties would reimburse the same. Accordingly, complainant took his vehicle to Sector 38, Motor Market, Chandigarh, where he came to know that the fly wheel and front shocker of the driver side was damaged and faulty.  It was also noticed that those parts were already repaired on temporary basis thereby making the vehicle prone to any major accident. Accordingly, the complainant got the car repaired from outside on assurance of the opposite parties that they would reimburse the same by purchasing the spare parts, for which he incurred ₹35,200/- and ₹44,800/- vide bills dated 28.10.2022 and 05.12.2022 respectively. The complainant presented the bills for reimbursement to the opposite parties but they refused to pay the same on the basis of delivery letter Exhibit C-3, which was got signed from the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant served legal notice dated 27.01.2023 upon the opposite parties but to no avail. However, opposite parties denied all claims and their liability vide reply dated 24.10.2022. It has further been stated that the complainant after getting the car repaired took it to Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh alongwith his family on 22.02.2023 to attend a wedding ceremony, but the car again broke down in midway at Garmukteshwar and was brought back by towing the same. On these allegations, the complainant, by filing the present complaint, has sought refund of ₹10,20,000/- i.e. the cost of the car alongwith the interest, besides an amount of ₹2,04,800/- alongwith interest incurred by him on repairs, ₹31,120/- incurred by him on registration charges besides other reliefs qua compensation and cost of litigation.

2. The opposite parties contested the complaint by filing joint reply wherein they pleaded that the complainant paid the price of ₹8,40,000/-in one go through different accounts and no cash payment of ₹1,80,000/- was ever paid by him. Further, the complainant himself posted good experience of the said purchase from the opposite parties on his facebook. Further, the car was purchased by the complainant and sold by the opposite parties on as is where is basis vide Delivery Letter dated 24.10.2022 placed on record by the complainant himself as Exhibit C-3. Further the complainant also tendered affidavit dated 24.10.2022 while taking delivery of the vehicle wherein he testified the factum with regard to his full satisfaction in so far as the functioning of the vehicle and documentation is concerned. Pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder wherein he reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and repudiated those as mentioned in the written statement of the opposite parties.
4.          The parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case and the written arguments of the parties very carefully.
6.           It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a second hand car i.e. Audi A6 on 24.10.2022 from the opposite parties against sale consideration. As per the complainant, he paid ₹10,20,000/- towards its purchase whereas as per the opposite parties, they have received an amount of ₹8,20,000/- as the sale consideration and no other amount by way of cash was ever received by the opposite parties. In this regard, it may be stated here that there is nothing on record by way of any cogent and convincing documentary evidence led by the complainant to establish that an amount of ₹1,80,000/- was paid by him to the opposite parties in cash. In his rejoinder, the complainant has stated that the cash payments received by the opposite parties from him were not recorded anywhere at the behest of the opposite parties. This contention of the complainant cannot be accepted for a simple reason that a person paying such a hefty amount of ₹1,80,000/- in cash would not ask for its receipt/acknowledgment. Thus, the contention of the complainant that he paid amount of ₹1,80,000/- in cash in the absence of a receipt, cannot be accepted and stands rejected.
7. Now coming to the main allegation that the opposite parties sold a defective second hand car to the complainant which already had certain major defects like defective fly wheel and shockers, even this contention has no legs to stand in view of a Delivery Letter dated 24.10.2022 Exhibit C-3, which transpires that the vehicle in question was sold to the complainant on as is where is basis. Note 1 as given in the said Delivery Letter reads thus:-

“Note: 1. Seller will be liable for all previous challan/accident/loan/court/police case etc. till date. 2. Purchaser will be liable for challan/accident/loan/ court/police case/theft etc. w.e.f. today. 3. Purchaser will be transfer the vehicle in his own name within 45 days from the date of taking of the transfer papers of above said vehicle & dealer will not be liable for the same. 4. The vehicle has been sold on as is where is basis. 5. After taken the possession of the said vehicle dealer will not be liable for anyting.6. The vehicle has subject to CHANDIGARH Jurisdiction only.

This delivery letter has been signed by the complainant in the presence of two witnesses. Both the buyer and seller have signed this document and were fully satisfied for the said deal as a note is also appearing with regard to such satisfaction under their respective signatures which reads thus:-

                                      “(I am fully satisfied for this deal)”

8. Not only above, the opposite parties have brought in evidence affidavit/undertaking dated 24.10.2022 as Exhibit P-4 of the complainant wherein the complainant has testified that he has fully satisfied himself regarding the running condition of the car as on the said date before finalizing the deal and he shall not make any further claim of any kind with regard to the vehicle after the said date of the sale.  He had further testified that he would get the vehicle transferred in his name within 30 days.  Thus, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid factual position on record brings us to a concrete conclusion that once the vehicle had been delivered to the complainant or the vehicle is accepted by him on as is where is basis, then he cannot raise any claim out of it and particularly, when he had himself given an Affidavit/Undertaking with regard to his satisfaction qua the condition of the vehicle. It is also a fact that whenever a consumer buys a second hand vehicle, he or she firstly satisfies himself or herself with regard to its condition and running then and there and only after fully satisfied, buys the same. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  The judgments relied upon by the complainant are of no help being distinguishable on facts.
9. For the reasons, recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
10. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this complaint stands disposed of having become infructuous.
11. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
12. File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

14.05.2024.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

[RAJESH  K. ARYA]

MEMBER

Ad