Punjab

Sangrur

CC/250/2017

Amanpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goverdhan Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rohit Jain

14 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

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 Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.