29.04.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that complainant approached the OP for the purchase of two wheeler scooter known as “Aviator Drum”, a product of Honda Motors under the exchange scheme with respect to the old scooter belongs to the complainant. It is stated that at that time OP was specifically asked to provide the quotation in respect of the BS-IV engine, which is the latest and permissible technology as per the government norms.
2. It is stated that OP vide quotation no.GTK 29726 dated 21.03.2017 gave the details in respect  of the aforesaid requirement of the complainant. It is further stated that after due negotiations, the OP demanded a sum of Rs.56,066/- as the cost of BS-IV engine scooter and in the aforesaid cost, the OP included the additional benefits such as cost of number place and helmet. It is stated that the representative of the OP namely Ms. Nidhi, who provided her phone number as 9555755008 finally offered the complainant to pay a round figure of Rs.56,000/- to the OP, instead of Rs.56,066/-.
3. It is stated that against the cheque bearing no.685736 for a sum of Rs.56,000/-, the OP issued a receipt no.GTK9455 (2016-17) dated 22.03.2017. It is further stated that against the delivery challan no.66012 dated 25.03.2017, the OP delivered the scooter bearing chasisno.5HD8072878 and engine no.80085355 to the complainant on 27.03.2017 as also taken the old scooter of the complainant  against the exchange scheme. The value of the said scooter of the complainant as assessed by the OP as Rs.2,500/- and the same was adjusted in the total cost of the new scooter. It is stated that at the time of taking the delivery of the aforesaid scooter, the complainant again verified from the representative of OP in respect of his specific requirements and the representative of the OP in the presence of her senior officer assured the complainant that the scooter which is being handed over to the complainant is exactly as per the demand of the complainant.
4. It is stated that since the complainant was doubting the words of the representative of the OP, hence to clear his doubt the complainant on the same day approached some of his known having better mechanical and technical knowledge and to the utter  surprise of the complainant, the scooter which was  delivered to him was found to be a used scooter. On coming to know this fact, the complainant immediately on next day i.e 28.03.2017 approached the OP.
5. It is stated that initially the representative of OP tried to mislead the complainant as also avoided the due verification regarding the doubts of the complainant, but on the persistent asking of the complainant, as also with the intervention of the local police who was called on the complaint of the complainant, the representative of the OP admitted the fact that the scooter delivered to him was a used scooter. It is further stated that  ultimately due to the intervention of the police, the representative of the OP agreed to deliver the complainant a new scooter in place on the previously delivered scooter on the basis of the same delivery challan dated 25.03.2017, however the engine number and chasis number on the same was replaced by using the fluid at the points where the previous engine and chasis number was written.
6. It is stated that since the complainant already suffered mental harassment from the OP and asked to ensure about the characteristic of scooter delivered to him at that stage. It is further stated that as there was involvement of police, therefore, in the presence of Sh. Vineet Sarin who was deputed as GM Sales the representative of OP assured the complainant that this time the scooter delivered is in accordance with the demand of complainant. It is stated that complainant had doubt, therefore, he again approached for better mechanical and technical knowledge on 29.03.2017 and it was revealed that once again complainant has been cheated by OP as instead of deliver him BS-IV engine product OP has delivered BS III engine. It is stated that complainant confirmed this fact from some experts.
7. It is stated that OP further played fraud upon the complainant as according to the delivery challan the scooter was delivered on 25.03.2017 but retail invoice was prepared on 28.03.2017. It is further stated that according to retail invoice ex showroom price of scooter is shown as Rs.52,077/- pertains to product “Honda Aviator with Drum Brake (BS IV)”, however the ex showroom price shown in provisional registration certificate dated 29.03.2017 the sale amount is shown as Rs.51,637/- which is the price pertain to scooter “Honda Aviator with Drum Brake”.
8. It is stated that on relieving these facts complainant approached the OP on 30.03.2017 but instead of considering the complaint the officials of OP started threatening than complainant approached police station Model Town and gave a written complaint in respect of fraud and cheating. It is further stated that on the complaint police registered DD No.44B dated 30.03.2017 but no action taken against OP. It is stated that complainant also approached and made several complaints to senior officials of police and informed about the commission of fraud by OP but all in vain. It is stated that it is crystal clear that complainant has not only been cheated but also harassed  physically and mentally by OP.
9. The complainant is seeking the direction against OP to refund the amount paid by complainant as also to hand over his old scooter which was  taken by OP under the exchange scheme and to pay compensation/damages of Rs.3,00,000/- as complainant suffered from mental tension, agony, physical pain, harassment and humiliation.
10. OP filed WS and taken preliminary objection that present complaint is an abuse of process of law and complainant has not approached the hon’ble forum with clean hands and also not stated the true, correct and material facts, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.
11.  On merit all the allegations are denied. It is stated that complainant booked the Aviator Drum Red Scooter on 21.03.2017 and also given a cheque of Rs.56,000/- and on the same day vehicle was allotted awaiting the clearance of the cheque. It is further stated that the cheque was cleared and vehicle was delivered on 25.03.2017 to the entire satisfaction of complainant. The OP has filed quotation dated 21.03.2017 and payment receipt of Rs.56,000/- on record. It is further stated that the complainant taken the delivery of the said scooter bearing chasis no.5HD8072878, Engine no. E80085355 on 25.03.2017 and old scooter i.e Bajaj Scooter was taken against exchange scheme for Rs.2500/- as per assessment. The OP filed delivery challan bearing no.66012 dated 25.03.2017 of new scooter Aviator and receiving of old bajaj scooter.
12. It is stated that the complainant again came to showroom on 28.03.2017 and forced the Sales Manager to change the vehicle with another one saying that complainant is not satisfied with the vehicle  received. It is further stated that Sales Manager tried to satisfy/convince the complainant but it was very difficult to change the vehicle once delivered than complainant started misbehaving and using filthy language and called the police. It is stated that complainant with three persons came to OP showroom as it was first day of Navratra’s the showroom was heavily crowded with customers and sales manager in order to avoid disturbance/quarrel change the vehicle. It is further stated that complainant was shown four scooters of the same model and colour among with complainant selected one bearing chasis no.9AH8124372 and engine no.8-1181876 and same was delivered to complainant through his entire satisfaction. The OP has filed delivery challan and invoice/bill dated 28.03.2017 and satisfaction letter of complainant.
13. It is stated that on old delivery challan bearing no.66012 the new scooter (Second time changed) bearing chasis no.9AH8124372 and engine no.8-1181876 was noted on 28.03.2017. The said scooter is running very smoothly without any trouble. The OP has filed vehicle service history on record. It is further stated that the complainant after the knowledge of order dated 29.03.2017 of Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding BS III engine vehicles which cannot be sold from 01.04.2017 and automakers brining on the best discount the clear the stock of BS III engine and complainant visited OP showroom on 30.03.2017 to gain the discount/benefit of stock out clearance of BS III engine vehicle. The copy of advertisement to clear out stock of BS III engine filed on record.
14. It is stated that whenever the complainant visited the service center/workshop of OP proper service was given and OP carried out normal repair/service and periodic service. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and the scooter of complainant does not bear any manufacturing defect and problem. It is further stated that complainant is having malafide intentions to extract the money from OP by misusing the provisions of CP Act. It is stated that present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
15. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the allegations made in the WS. It is stated that OP has committed forgery for the purpose of cheating with knowledge for causing wrongful gain to themselves and the forgery is clearly proved on the basis of documents as delivery challan DC No.012 and BF no.48202 dated 25.03.2017. It is stated that complainant is entitled for all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
16. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit dated 08.03.2021 and reiterated contents of the complaint. The complainant relied on photocopy of Aadhar Card Ex.CW1, copy of quotation dated 21.03.2017 Ex.CW2, copy of receipt of Rs.56,000/- dated 22.03.2017 Ex.CW3, copy of delivery note dated 27.03.2017 Ex.CW4, copy of delivery challan dated 25.03.2017 Ex.CW5, copy of retail invoice dated 28.03.2017 Ex.CW6, copy of transport department Ex.CW7, copy of police complaint Ex.CW8 and copy of audio CD Ex.CW9.
17. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Parmeet Singh Anand Director of OP and reiterated contents of WS. The OP relied on copy of quotation dated 21.03.2017 Ex.RW1/A, copy of payment receipt of Rs.56,000/- Ex.RW1/B, copy of delivery challan bearing no.66012 dated 25.03.2017 Ex.RW1/C, copy of receiving of old bajaj scooter Ex.RW1/D, copy of delivery challan of second time scooter Ex.RW1/E, copy of invoice bill dated 28.03.2017 Ex.RW1/E1, copy of satisfaction letter of complainant dated 28.03.2017 Ex.RW1/F, copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 29.03.2017 Ex.RW1/G1 to G5, copy of advertisement to clear out stock of BS III engine vehicle/discount offer Ex.RW1/H1 to H7 and copy of vehicle service history Ex.RW1/I1 to I2.
18. Complainant as well as OP filed written arguments.
19. We have heard Sh. Dev Raj Sukhija counsel for complainant and Sh. D.K Sinha counsel for OP and gone through the record.
20. It is admitted case  of parties that on 21.03.2017 complainant made enquiry for purchase of new two wheeler scooter Aviator Drum from OP and a quotation no. GTK29726 dated 21.03.2017 given by OP to complainant. We have gone through the quotation it mention the model Aviator Drum and total price Rs.57,124/-. It is further admitted that on this quotation complainant voluntarily agreed to purchase the said model of two wheeler scooter and paid Rs.56,000/- as per receipt dated 22.03.2017. It is further admitted that on 25.03.2017 complainant receive the delivery vide challan no. 66012. Another delivery challan filed having the same number but the engine no. and chasis no. is different. However, the retail invoice dated 28.03.2017 of Rs.57,460/- mentioned the engine no. and chasis no. with one of the delivery challan. The document pertaining to transport department dated 03.04.2017 mentioned the chasis no. and engine no. identical to retail invoice dated 28.03.2017.
21. The complainant has not come with clean hands and concealded some material facts. The complainant alleged that he had asked a quotation of BS IV engine and after due negotiation 56,066 cost was settled. However, as per quotation and subsequent development of Hon’ble Supreme Court order has not been mentioned in the complaint. The complainant has purchased the scooter under the scheme of exchange of old two wheeler scooter whereby he had handed over his old bajaj scooter. The complainant has also not mentioned in the complaint that on 28.03.2017 he had visited the showroom of OP and the two wheeler scooter which was purchased and delivery on 25.03.2017 was got changed on 28.03.2017. The two delivery challans comes into picture only when OP  changed the two wheeler scooter on 28.03.2017. As per OP hon’ble Supreme Court as per order dated 29.03.2017directed the ban on sale of BS III engine vehicles from 01.04.2017 and OP in view of this order started clearing the stock of BS III engines and also giving discount. The complainant seems to be deprived of this clearance discount which is the genesis of the present complaint. The complainant has already purchased the two wheeler scooter admittedly on 25.03.2017 under the exchange scheme, therefore, he was not entitled on 28.03.2017 for discounts as well. The discount policy came after the Supreme Court order and complainant is not covered or entitled for the said discount. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect or deficiency of service by OP after purchase of the two wheeler scooter. Even OP changed the scooter within three days of approaching by the complainant. The OP also filed vehicle history sheet according to which no allegation of deficiency of service alleged by complainant.
22. On the above observation and discussion complainant failed to establish unfair trade practice or deficiency of service against the OP. Hence, present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
23. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  29.04.2024.

     SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER