DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/69

Date of Institution : 01.02.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 21.06.2022

Sh. Gurnek Singh Prop. M/s Mark India, Building No. 19, Adjoining Khalsa Post Office, Amritsar. …Complainant

Versus

ANR Motors Private Limited, Daburji GT Road, Near Bye Pass, Amritsar Through its Director/Officer Incharge.  

…Opposite Party

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. Amit Bhatia Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Sanjeet Singh Adv counsel for the opposite party. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against ANR Motors Private Limited, Amritsar. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased one car marka Innova Crysta 2.4 G package 8 seater vide bill No. INV170000510  dated 19.6.2017 for Rs. 15,39,900/- which is used by the complainant for his personal use. The opposite party is the registered dealer of the Toyota Company. After purchasing the said car when the complainant received the registration certificate of the car then he surprise to know that the model of the car is mentioned as December 2016 whereas the car was purchased in the year 2017 and representative of the opposite party sold the car to the complainant in the mid of 2017 but the manufacturing of the car is of 2016. In this way the opposite party sold the previous year model by concealing this fact from the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice. Even the complainant paid the desired amount of the model 2017 without taking benefit of any scheme. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay Rs. 4 lacs as compensation for harassment and mental tension. 

2) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer qua opposite party as the car has been purchased under the name of firm. The present complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. Further, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant is estopped by his own acts from filing this complaint. The complainant concealed material facts from this Commission and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.

5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant himself willing to purchase the 2016 model as the opposite party was giving heavy discount and accessories. On 13.6.2017 the complainant came to opposite party and showed his willingness to buy such car and got such vehicle booked on 14.6.2017 by paying requisite amount of Rs. 1 lac. On 16.6.2017 he was willing to purchase 2016 model as such proper quotation for 2016 model was given and explained to him including discount and accessories and complainant agree to purchase the same and also counter signed the same. After 3 days i.e. on 19.6.2017 the complainant purchased the said car from the opposite party without any objection. The opposite party has no concealed anything from the complainant and sold the same vehicle to the complainant which he desired to purchase. Lastly, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.   

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of RC Ex.C-2, copy of sale invoice Ex.C-3, copy of provisional RC Ex.C-4, copy of receipt of fee Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. 

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party   tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Kapoor General Manager Finance Ex.OP-1/A and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. 

9. On the perusal of the file it came to notice that the opposite party had filed an application for permission for adducing the booking receipt to bring on record by way of tendering additional evidence. The said application was filed by the opposite party when the case was fixed for arguments. The applicant/opposite party alleged in the application that the booking receipt has a relevance or bearing on the issues involved. On the other hand the complainant has filed the reply to the said application and taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is legally not maintainable at this stage and denied all the facts mentioned in the application. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the booking receipt is important document to produce on the file for the just and correct decision of the present complaint. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the present complaint is fixed for arguments for the last almost one year and the document which is desired to produce was in possession of opposite party from the beginning therefore present application is filed by the opposite party just to linger on the matter and to fill the lacunas. As per the arguments of both the counsel for the parties and documents produced on the file by both the parties this Commission is of the view the present application is not maintainable at this stage as the document in question was in the possession of the opposite party from the beginning and they failed to produce the same at the time of evidence. Therefore, this application is filed by the opposite party just to linger on the matter, therefore, the application filed by the opposite party for additional evidence is dismissed. 

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the opposite party on 19.6.2017  which is the middle of the year 2017 vide invoice Ex.C-3. Further, from this invoice Ex.C-3 it is proved on the file that this Innova Crysta Car  had sold on 19.6.2017 meaning thereby that the car is of 2017 model. But from the copy of the RC Ex.C-2 and copy of provisional registration certificate Ex.C-4 it is proved on the file that the innova car in question was manufactured on 12/2016. From both these documents it is proved on the file that the vehicle was of 2016 model but sold the complainant in 2017. Further, the counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant himself purchased the 2016 model vehicle as the opposite party was giving heavy discount and accessories on that model. But the opposite party failed to mention that discount and accessories in the written version and even not filed any detail or document in their evidence to prove that discount and benefits which were given on 2016 model to the complainant. Even in the bill Ex.C-3 zero discount is mentioned against the column of discount. In this way, it is proved by the complainant by way of his evidence that the opposite party sold 2016 model to the complainant instead of 2017 model which is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party failed to produce any document to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, the complainant already used the vehicle  from the last many years so he is not entitled for the replace of the same. However, the complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses.

11. In view of the above discussion present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        20th Day of June 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member