PER:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant for his personal transport needs purchased one motorcycle from the opposite party No. 1 on 22.7.2019 by getting its financed from Shri Ram Finance Company and the motorcycle bearing registration No. PB46-AD-3729 is having chassis No. JRC20186 and Engine No. RJC50328. At the time of selling the vehicle to the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that this vehicle has been manufactured in the month of June 2018 and is of latest model and make. As per registered with the opposite party by the opposite party No. 1 was received by opposite party No. 1 from the complainant for paying it to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the RC will be received to him it has been received by the opposite party No. 2 after a fortnight. The complainant was very much embarrassed when he received the RC from the opposite party No 1 and came to know that the manufacturing date mentioned on the RC was June 2018 but now June 2019 as told by the opposite party NO.1 while selling the motorcycle to the complainant, so the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.1 and submitted his grievance regarding it but the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that it is a fault of the opposite party No.2 as a wrong manufacturing date has been mentioned on the RC by this party, so keeping in view this submission made by the opposite party No.1 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 regarding the above mentioned grievance but the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that as per bills and record supplied by the opposite party No.1 the manufacturing date is June 2018 and not June 2019. So, again the complainant had to approach the opposite party No.1 but same was the reply by opposite party No. 1. The complainant has been very much embarrassed with the act and conduct of both the parties as both the opposite parties are trying to shift their onus on each other and are not providing the relief to the complainant which they are bound to do so nor are satisfying the complainant regarding his grievance. The complainant has paid to the opposite party No.1 for a latest model and make vehicle but as per the RC the complainant vehicle is registered having manufacturing date of a year ago and as such if the market value of the vehicle purchased by him is assessed then at this point of time he has suffered loss of value of the vehicle which amounts to Rs. 20,000/- and as such this loss has been suffered by the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties. The complainant has been visiting the opposite parties from the last 5 months to get his grievance heard and to get compensation of the loss of value due to the conduct of the opposite parties of the vehicle purchased by him but all in vain. The complainant has prayed that the following reliefs may be granted in favour of complainant.
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed either to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation being loss of value of vehicle as mentioned above or replace the vehicle with new one of the latest make and model.
- The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant.
Alongwtih the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, self attested copy of Challan form Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of RC Ex. C-3.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant has not come with clean hands to this commission and has suppressed material facts, which disentitles him from seeking any relief. True facts of the case are that the complainant visited the opposite party No.1 to purchase a motor cycle Discover110 having manufacturing of June, 2018 was available with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 offered discount of Rs.1500/- on purchase of said motor cycle since having manufacturing of previous year and the complainant accepted the said offer and the complainant with his own sweet will purchased the said motorcycle after thorough inspection and driving the same. Said motor cycle in question was delivered to the complainant vide challan dated 22.7.2019 which was signed by the complainant too, on which chassis number finds mentioned as JRC20186 reflecting the manufacturing of 2018 June, which has been placed on record by the complainant himself as Ex.C-2. As such now the complainant cannot show ignorance of the fact that he does not know the model of the motor cycle in question at the time of purchase of the same. Further at the time of purchase, the complainant executed a self declaration dated 22.7.2019 with regard to purchase of said motor cycle after thorough inspection and driving in which chassis number is also finds mentioned reflecting the year and month of manufacturing. Further the complainant also executed an affidavit on dated 22.7.2019 at the time of purchase of the motor cycle to the effect that he is purchasing motor cycle on 22.7.2019 having chassis No JRC20186 Engine No.RIC50328 having manufacturing date June,2018 and specifically to the effect that he is purchasing the motor cycle after having full knowledge about Model. The opposite party No.1 provided discount of Rs.1500/- to the complainant for purchasing old model motorcycle and accordingly charged less. The opposite party No.1 provided its services to get the motor cycle in question registered with the opposite party No.2. After receipt of the registration certificate, the same was handed over to the complainant. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 1 did not sell the motor cycle in question by saying that it is having manufacturing of 2019 or that the registration certificate will have manufacturing of the motor cycle in question of 2019, since the motor cycle having manufacturing of 2018 therefore so was to be reflected in the RC. Therefore the opposite party No.1 is not at any fault. It is the complainant who has filed this false complaint in order to harass the opposite party no.1 without any cause of action having full knowledge of model of motor cycle at the time of purchase of the motor cycle in question and even after availing discount of model. Infact a greed has crept in the mind of the complainant and has filed this false complaint in order to extort money from the opposite party No.1. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. some complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, which require lengthy procedure of summoning of records and witnesses, further their examination and cross examination, therefore the present complaint should be relegated to the civil courts, as the same cannot be decided in summary way under Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record affidavit of Kulbir Kaur Manager Ex. OP1/1, Photostat copy of affidavit of Prabhjit Singh Ex. OP1/2, Photostat copy of self declaration Ex. OP1/3.
4 The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and has filed written version by interalia pleadings that the instant complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The opposite party No. 2 is government authority and as per well settled law it is mandatory to serve a legal notice under section 80 CPC for initiating any kind of litigation against the opposite party No. 2 But the complainant has miserably failed to comply with the provisions of section 80 CPC as per law as no notice was served by the complainant to the opposite Party No. 2 before filing the complaint. The opposite party No. 2 has no fault on his part as the official of opposite party No. 2 prepared the R.C. of complainant as per well settled procedure. R.C. in question was prepared as per FORM 21 so filled and forwarded by the dealer to the opposite party No. 2 and the same is online procedure and there is no question of fault on party of opposite party No. 2. The complainant has no locus standi to file the instant suit against the opposite party No. 2. The instant suit is merely an abuse of process of law and has been filed by the complainant with mala-fide intention to mislead this commission. The complainant has come to the court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts from the notice of this Commission. The instant complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of the material facts from this commission. The complainant has got no cause of action & locus standi to file the instant complaint against the opposite party No. 2. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the instant complainant. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 1 has placed on record form 21 Ex. OP2/1, Tax Invoice (Vehicle ) Ex. OP2/2.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.
6 In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased motorcycle bearing registration No. PB46-AD-3729 is having chassis No. JRC20186 and Engine No. RJC50328 from the opposite party No.1. Dispute in the present case is that according to complainant, he purchased motorcycle in the month July 2019 and the opposite party No. 1 has sold the old motorcycle which has been manufactured in the month of June 2018 and Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that it is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. But on the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 contended that the complainant visited the opposite party No.1 to purchase a motor cycle Discover110. Motor cycle Discover110 having manufacturing of June, 2018 was available with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 offered discount of Rs.1500/- on purchase of said motor cycle since having manufacturing of previous year and the complainant accepted the said offer and the complainant with his own sweet will purchased the said motorcycle after thorough inspection and driving the same. Said motor cycle in question was delivered to the complainant vide challan dated 22.7.2019 which was signed by the complainant too, on which chassis number finds mentioned as JRC20186 reflecting the manufacturing of 2018 June, which has been placed on record by the complainant himself as Ex.C-2. It is also contended by the at the time of purchase, the complainant executed an affidavit dated 22.7.2019 Ex. OP1/2 with regard to purchase of said motor cycle after thorough inspection and driving in which chassis number is also finds mentioned reflecting the year and month of manufacturing. Further the complainant also executed a self declaration on dated 22.7.2019 Ex. OP1/3 at the time of purchase of the motor cycle to the effect that he is purchasing motor cycle on 22.7.2019 having chassis No JRC20186 Engine No.RIC50328 and prayed that the vehicle of 2018 has been sold to the complainant with his consent and amount of Rs. 1,500/- has been deducted. The bare reading of affidavit Ex. OP1/2 shows I has been clearly written that manufacture June 2018 and its chassis and Engine Number and It has also clearly mentioned at Para No. 3 of the said affidavit that he has full knowledge qua the model of the motorcycle and I purchased the motorcycle with my consent. This affidavit is duly signed by the complainant Prabhjit Singh and the complainant has not rebutted this document by filing the counter affidavit and rejoinder. As such, the affidavit Ex. OP1/2 and self declaration Ex. OP1/3 are material documents have been executed by the complainant and same cannot be ignored. In this way, the opposite party No. 1 has sold the vehicle in question validly to the complainant after explaining its model which is quite clear from the affidavit Ex. OP1/2 and self declaration Ex. OP1/3 and the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
7 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
23.2.2023
