Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1020

MANOJ SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HONDA MOTORS & SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH.UMESHWAR DAYAL

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1020 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 09.05.2017 passed in C.C.No.588/2016 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

MANOJ SHARMA,

S/O LATE SHRI RAMDAYAL SHARMA,

R/O WARD NO.64, NEAR WARD OFFICE,

PURANI CHHAWNI, LASHKAR,

GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                                          ….           APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. HONDA MOTORS & SCOOTER INDIA

    PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH AGENT/MANAGER,

    SATNAM TRADE LINKS PVT.LTD.

    DIVYA SAI HONDA, INDERGANJ CHOURAHA,

    LASHKAR, GWALIOR (M.P.)

 

2. HONDA MOTORS & SCOOTER INDIA

    PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH MANAGER,

    REGISTERED OFFICE-COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,

    SECOND SECTOR 49-50, GOLF COURSE

    AND STATION ROAD, GUDGAON (GURUGAM)

    HARYANA.                                                                                              ….           RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the respondents.

          

                   

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 20.07.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short

 

-2-

‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.588/2016, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant had purchased a ‘Honda Aviator’ Scooter from the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 on 02.08.2016 for a sum of Rs.58,883/- on the basis of quotation dated 20.07.2016. It is alleged that the said scooter which was sold to him in the year 2016 was of make and model of 2014. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties/respondents of selling an old scooter, the appellant approached the District Commission, seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the appellant was sold the same scooter, which was selected by him.  It was unused and a new scooter. Year of manufacture does not carry any relevance while running a vehicle as the date of its registration is important.  It is further submitted that the appellant had purchased the said scooter after full and final satisfaction and a sale certificate was also issued to him. Therefore, the complaint filed by him deserves to be dismissed.

4.                Heard. Perused the record.

5.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that year of manufacture is clearly mentioned as 2014 in the document of registration of

-3-

the subject vehicle.  The opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 had sold the said scooter to him in the year 2016, which is deficiency in service on their part. They ought to have compensated by way of payment of difference amount to him.  The District Commission has not considered this important aspect of the matter and it has been erroneous in dismissing the complaint. He therefore argued that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents argued that it is an admitted fact that the appellant had purchased the said scooter after verifying the same. Quotation and invoice were also supplied to him. He never objected regarding year of manufacture while buying the subject scooter but later filed a complaint against the opposite parties/respondents merely to harass them. There is no expiry date for the vehicles and their age is calculated from the registration date. He argued that this appeal is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

7.                As we carefully peruse the record of the District Commission, we find that the quotation and invoice of the subject scooter are available on record. Insurance policy is also on record for perusal. The appellant has alleged that the registration of the subject vehicle shows year of manufacture as 2014.  The District Commission has observed that the appellant does not seem to have alleged that he was assured by the respondents that the scooter was of make and model of 2016.  Neither does

-4-

the evidence suggest that he ever had any specific inquiry of that sorts. It is also not evident from the record of the District Commission that he had  doubts while purchasing the said scooter. Sale certificate available in record annexed as R-1, which had been supplied by the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1 to the appellant specifies the year of manufacture as 2014. The appellant has also not controverted the same by way of any evidence.

8.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. The impugned order is not found to be suffering from any illegality or infirmity. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

9.                As a result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

 

            (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)              (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                                PRESIDENT                                            MEMBER