Haryana

StateCommission

CC/46/2016

OM DUTT - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANSAL MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

MOHAN SHARMA

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.46 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 25.02.2016

Date of Decision: 25.04.2016

 

Om Dutt aged 40 years son of Shri Dayanand Resident of Djingar Mazra Distt. Karnal.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. M/s Bansal Motors Karnal through its authorized signatory G.T. (Mandnpur)  Road Opposite Neel Kanth Dhaba district Karnal. Pin-code 132001.
2. M/s V.E. Commercial Vehicle limited through its Authorized signatory, Marketing Head Quarter 102, Industrial Area No.1 Pithampur, District Dhar Madha Pradesh Pincode 454775.
3. Shree Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. Admn. Office 101-105, Ist Floor, B Wing, Shiv Chambers Sector 11, C.B.D. Belapur Navi Mumbai 400614.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Mohan Sharma, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

     The complainant has requested to direct the opposite parties (O.Ps.) to refund the entire sale price amounting to Rs.23,46,000/- besides compensation for mental harassment etc.  He has assessed his total claim to the tune of Rs.49,46,000/-. 

2.      It is alleged that he purchased truck, as detailed in para No.1 of the complaint, from O.P.No.1 on 23.12.2014 for Rs.23,46,000/-.  From the perusal of chasis tag, various stickers on body part and tyres of truck it is clear that this vehicle was manufactured in the year 2014, but, was sold to him as manufactured in the year 2015 which is clear from the perusal of form No.21. In the forms it is mentioned that vehicle was manufactured in the month of September 2015.  It was the duty of the manufacturer to mention the correct date on the product.  As they did not mention correct manufacturing date etc. so they be directed to pay Rs.49,46,000/- including the price of the truck. 

3.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

4.      The complainant has miserably failed to show that he was cheated by the O.ps. before purchase of the vehicle.   He must have seen the same.  It is no where alleged that some different vehicle was shown instead of vehicle which was sold to him.  If some parts were manufactured in the year 2014 it does not mean that date of manufacture is different.  The Company manufactures engine, chasis etc. and other parts are received from the different companies.  It is not possible that vehicle will be sold on the same very day when it is manufactured.  If a vehicle has been manufactured in the first week of December and is sold in the month of January then it does not mean that dealer has cheated.  It is not necessary that in that very week the vehicle is sold. The complainant has miserably failed to show how he suffered any type of loss due to sale of this vehicle. The complainant has miserably failed to show that vehicle is having any type of manufacturing defect. This complaint seems to be abuse of process of law. Hence the same is hereby dismissed. 

 

April 25th, 2016       Urvashi Agnihotri                           R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                       Member                                             Judicial Member                                                     Addl. Bench                                     Addl.Bench             

S.K.