Amanpreet Kaur filed a consumer case on 14 Jul 2017 against Goverdhan Automobiles in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/250/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Jul 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 250
Instituted on: 01.06.2017
Decided on: 14.07.2017
Amanpreet Kaur wife of Swarn Singh resident of Ram Nagar, Back Side Jain Samark, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
Goverdhan Automobile, through its proprietor/ Partner, Opposite Verka Milk Plant, Patiala Road, Sangrur.
….Opposite party.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTY : Exparte
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Amanpreet Kaur, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she purchased one Yamaha Motorcycle model R15-Single Seat for an amount of Rs.1,15,241/- from the OP vide retail invoice number 153 dated 09.03.2017 and she had paid a total amount of Rs.1,35,000/- to the OP . When the complainant receipt the RC of the motorcycle on second week of May then she was shocked to see the RC that there was printed that manufacturing date of the same was 2016 instead of 2017. The complainant immediately approached the OP and requested to change the motorcycle but the OP and get the correction made in the RC but the OP did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OP be directed to change the motorcycle with new one of 2017 model and to get the correction in the RC and to provide details of amount received from the complainant and to refund the excess amount charged if any,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Despite service OP did not appear and as such OP was proceeded exparte on 30.06.2017.
3. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed evidence.
4. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the motorcycle in question from the OP for an amount of Rs.1,15,241/- . The main point of controversy in the present complaint before us is that complainant has alleged that the OP had supplied said motorcycle of the year of 2016 model instead of 2017.
5. The complainant's case is that she paid total amount of Rs.1,35,000/- to the OPs for the motorcycle in question but the OP had not supplied any detail regarding the payment. It has been alleged by the complainant that at the time of purchase of said motorcycle, the delivery man told her that motorcycle was of 2017 model but when she received the RC of the motorcycle then she came to know that the same was of 2016 model instead of 2017. She also came to know that there was difference in the chessis number and engine number as mentioned in the RC and other documents i.e. insurance cover and copy of delivery challan and invoice. When the complainant requested the OP then OP told her that she should approach the DTO Office for correction in the RC.
6. We have perused the retail invoice no.153 dated 09.03.2017 Ex.C-2 and found that it has been specifically mentioned in it that the motorcycle is of 2016 model. It has also been mentioned in the insurance policy dated 10.03.2017 Ex.C-4 that the model of the motorcycle is of 2016 model. It is matter of common knowledge that if the OP had supplied the model of the year of 2016 instead of 2017 to the complainant then she should had taken immediate appropriate step against the illegal and wrong act of the OP by writing a letter/ complaint to the higher authorities in this regard but the complainant has not produced on record any document which shows that the complainant had taken such type of step against the OP. So, we feel that it was in the knowledge of the complainant at the time of delivery that the motorcycle in question was of the year of 2016 model. As such, the complainant has failed to prove this point of controversy.
7. From the perusal of the documents we find that the there is difference of engine number and chassis number as mentioned in the RC and the other documents i.e. insurance cover note, copy of delivery challan and copy of invoice. We feel that it is the duty of the OP to get the same corrected because they had taken the charges for preparation of the R.C. from the complainant and RC had been prepared by the OP.
8. For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to get the R.C of the complainant corrected from the DTO office at its own level. We further order the OP to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
9. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced
July 14, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.