BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.159 of 2016

Date of Instt. 05.04.2016

Date of Decision : 26.04.2016

Deepak Kumar son of Subhash Chander, Partner of M/s Deepak Heritage, Office at Shop No.6 & 7, Fatfron Mall, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Joshi Autozone Pvt Ltd., through its General Manager Capt.GP Singh, Address Narang Square, NH-1, GT Road, Paragpur, P.O.Dhanowali, Jalandhar.

2. Capt.G.P.Singh, General Manager, Address Narang Square, NH-1, GT Road, Paragpur, P.O.Dhanowali, Jalandhar.

3. Concerned aged of Joshi Autozone Pvt Ltd., Chandigarh.

4. Concerned agent of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Regd.Office at ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vimal Sachdeva Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the submission that he purchased Mercedes-Benz Car from OP No.1 vide invoice No.11 (but no copy of invoice/bill has been produced by the complainant). The complainant submitted that the vehicle in question was delivered to the complainant on 22.3.2012 but the OP No.1 delivered the vehicle to the complainant which was manufactured in 2011 by stating that the vehicle in question bears year of manufacturing 2012. Thereby the OP has cheated the complainant and delivered the vehicle in question by mis-leading and misrepresentating the facts regarding year of manufacturing. The complainant also served legal notice dated NIL to the OP in this regard asking the OP either to deliver the aforesaid vehicle manufactured in 2012 to the complainant or to refund the price or compensate to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20 Lacs, alongwith interest and litigation expenses.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have minutely gone through the record.

3. The complainant has not produced any invoice/bill or delivery letter or any letter proving the date of manufacturing of the vehicle in question which was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 for Rs.41,99,688/- i.e. Mercedes-Benz Car bearing registration No.PB-08-CB-6766 and through this complaint, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed either to deliver the car i.e. Mercedes-Benz Car manufactured in 2012 or to compensate the complainant with cost which amounts to either replacement of the car i.e. Mercedes-Benz Car manufactured in 2012, the price of which must be more than Rs.41,99,688/- which is the price of aforesaid car manufactured in 2011. This Forum has jurisdiction to decide the cases upto the value of Rs.20 Lacs. As such, the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable rather the same is maintainable in the Hon'ble State Commission.

4. Secondly, the car in question was delivered to the complainant on 22.3.2012 and complainant got the same registered with the registering authority on 14.1.2013 fully knowing the facts that the car has been manufactured in 2011 and not in 2012. The cause of action accrued to the complainant on 22.3.2012 or at the most when the car was got registered with the registering authority on 14.1.2013. In the RC of the vehicle, the date of manufacturing of the car is also mentioned. Whereas the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 5.4.2016 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than 4 years from the date of delivery of the vehicle in question to the complainant on 22.3.2012. No application has been filed by the complainant for condonation of delay, if any. So, this complaint is also barred by limitation.

5. As discussed above that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant being not maintainable with liberty to file the same before the appropriate authority having pecuniary jurisdiction. Copies of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

26.04.2016 Member Member President