Haryana

Karnal

541/2011

Balvinder Singh S/o Hari Sinhg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hero Honda Motors Ltd., Nirmal Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod dogra

10 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.541 of 2011

                                                             Date of instt.:02.09.2011

                                                              Date of decision:10.01.2017

 

Balvinder Singh son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of village Kheri Naru, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., Gurgaon Sector 33,34, Jaipur Highway.

2. Nirmal Motors, Meerut Road, Karnal-132001, through its Manager.

 

                                                                        ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Vinod Dogra Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Ashok Nagpal Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                                     

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing Engine no.HA10EHA9M 30783, Chasis no.MBLHA10ADA9M 27639 having temporary registration no.HR99 (HQ) 6919, from opposite party no.2 vide bill/invoice dated 3.1.2011. The opposite party no.2 on behalf of his company as well as on behalf of opposite party no.1 issued warranty card alongwith bill and other documents. Extended warranty registration form EW Cert. no.HHML 281978 was also issued by opposite party no.1, mentioning therein year of manufacturing of the motorcycle as 2011. In fact, the opposite party no.2 had induced him for purchasing the motorcycle by assuring that the year of manufacturing of motorcycle was 2011. The opposite party no.2 also obtained his signatures on various forms and necessary expenses for getting the motorcycle registered through its agent. The registration certificate of the motorcycle was given to him in the last week of February, 2011. On receipt of the registration certificate, he came to know that the year of manufacturing of the motorcycle was mentioned as 2010 instead of 2011 as assured by opposite party no.2. Thereafter, he visited the showroom of opposite party no.2 and requested either to replace the motorcycle with the motorcycle manufacturing in the year 2011 or refund the amount, but the opposite party no.2 delayed the matter on one excuse or the other. He got served legal notice dated 14.05.2011 upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Thus, the opposite parties played fraud upon him, which amounted to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental pain agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complaint has been filed with malafide and ulterior motive and that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that at the time of sale of vehicle sale certificate alongwith other necessary documents required for registration of the vehicle was given to the complainant. However, inadvertently due to bonafide mistake while issuing the extended registration form, the year of manufacturing of the vehicle was mentioned as 2011 instead of 2010. The year of manufacturing of the vehicle was mentioned as 2010 in the sale certificate, on the basis of which the vehicle was got registered by the complainant. The vehicle was registered by Registration Authority (M) on 7.1.2011 in favour of the complainant and year of manufacturing was mentioned 2010. Taking undue illegal advantage of bonafide mistake in extended warranty registration form, present complaint has been filed with malafide intention. After sale and delivery of the vehicle to the complainant, the opposite parties had no role to play. The Registration Certificate was not got issued by the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C7 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Rajesh Bamba Ex.OP1/A has only been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                The complainant had purchased one Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle from opposite party no.2 vide/invoice dated 3.1.2011. As per the case of the complainant he was told that the year of manufacturing was 2011.  In the extended warranty registration form also the year of manufacture was mentioned as 2011. Opposite party no.2 got registered vehicle after charging expenses from him. After receipt of the registration certificate he came to know that the year of manufacture was 2010.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant laid emphasis on the contention that the opposite party no.2 played fraud upon the complainant by wrongly assuring him that the year of the manufacturing was 2011, whereas the same was of the year 2010. The opposite party no.2 even mentioned the year of manufacturing on the extended warranty registration form as 2011. The registration certificate was got issued by the opposite party no.2 after charging expenses from the complainant and when the complainant got the registration certificate he came to know that year of manufacturing of the motorcycle was 2010. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, the complainant was entitled to get replaced his motorcycle with a new one of 2011 model and compensation for mental pain agony and harassment.

8.                No doubt in the extended warranty registration form, the copy of which is Ex.C2, year of manufacturing of the motorcycle was mentioned as 2011, but in all other documents the year of manufacturing was mentioned as 2010.  The opposite parties have raised the plea that the year of manufacturing was written as 2011 in the extended warranty registration certificate due to inadvertence instead of 2010. The sale letter and delivery letter could be the best available evidence regarding the year of manufacturing of the vehicle/motorcycle. Motorcycle was got registered with registration authority Karnal on the basis of the said sale letter/invoice. In the registration certificate, the copy of which is Ex.C4 the year of manufacturing was mentioned as 2010. Thus, it is emphatically clear that in the sale letter and delivery letter the year of manufacturing was mentioned 2010. The complainant had purchased the motorcycle on 3.1.2011 and the registration certificate was issued on 7.1.2011 i.e. just after four days of the purchase. Generally, reaching a vehicle to the showroom of a dealer for the purpose of sale certainly takes sometime after the date of manufacturing of the same. A man of ordinary prudence could very well think that the vehicle manufactured in the year 2011 could not reach showroom of the dealer for sale just within three days of its manufacturing. Even otherwise, the complainant could verify the year of manufacturing from the chasis number, engine number and the plate fixed on the motorcycle regarding year of manufacturing. Complainant is an educated person, therefore it cannot be expected from him that he was misled by any assurance of opposite party no.2 regarding year of manufacturing of the motorcycle. The facts and circumstances indicate that the year of manufacturing in the extended warranty registration form might have been mentioned as 2011 due to some inadvertence and the complainant cannot take advantage of such mistake, particularly when in the sale letter the year of manufacturing was mentioned as 2010.

9.                Before parting, it is also worthwhile to add that there is solitary affidavit of the complainant in support of his plea that the registration certificate was got issued by opposite party no.2, which cannot be taken to be the gospel truth, as the same does not find support from any documentary evidence. Complainant even did not disclose as to what amount was paid by him to opposite party no.2 for expenses of the registration. Therefore, it is to be considered that the complainant himself got registered the vehicle with registration authority. The sale letter and delivery letter were given to him by the opposite party no.2 at the time of sale of the motorcycle, which can very well perused by him to know about the year manufacturing of the motorcycle.

10.              In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation in observing that the complainant has not been able to establish that there was any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

11.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 10.01.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member