Punjab

Sangrur

CC/305/2018

Chamkaur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karun Auto Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Goyal

08 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 305

Instituted on:  18.07.2018

                                                                        Decided on:    08.03.2019

 

Chamkaur Singh S/o Ajaib Singh R/O Village Pedni Kalan, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

Karun Auto Enterprises, Malerkotla Bye-pass Road, Dhuri, District Sangrur through its Manager.  148024.

             ….Opposite party

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY              :      Shri Jatinder Pal in person.      

 

Quorum

         

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

                    Manisha, Member

ORDER:  

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Chamkaur Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OP by purchasing one motorcycle bearing Bajaj Platina vide bill number 435 on 28.2.2018 by paying a sum of Rs.55,300/- being the cost of motorcycle along with insurance and registration charges.  The case of the complainant is that the OP assured that the motorcycle is of 2018 model when it was delivered to the complainant on 28.2.2018, but actually it was of the month/year 11/2017.  This fact came to the knowledge of the complainant when the OP delivered the registration certificate of the vehicle, as such, it is stated that the OP has wrongly and willfully has sold the motorcycle of 2017 model instead of 2018. The complainant also requested the Ops either to replace the motorcycle with a new one of 2018 model or to refund the price of the same, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed either to replace the motorcycle of the complainant with a new one of 2018 model or to refund the price of the motorcycle i.e. Rs.55,300/- including insurance and registration charges and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is frivolous one, that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle in question, but it is stated that it was told to the complainant that it is of 2017 model when the same was sold to the complainant. It is stated further that the complainant just to grab the money in illegal manner has filed the present complaint after the period of five months.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.  No written arguments have been filed by the complainant.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant purchased one number Bajaj Platina motorcycle from OP vide challan number 435 dated 28.2.2018 for Rs.55,300/-.  Though no price of the motorcycle has been mentioned on the challan, but the OP has not rebutted this fact.  Further the (sale certificate)  form 21 issued by the OP on 7.3.2018 after the lapse of about 13 days, the month and year of manufacturing has been mentioned as November 2017, but nothing has been mentioned about the month and year of manufacture on the tax invoice.  Registration certificate of the vehicle issued by the Punjab Govt. also shows the manufacturing date as 11/2017. The learned counsel for the complainant during the arguments submitted that why the complainant would buy the model 2017 motorcycle in the year 2018.  We feel that the OP in connivance with the insurance company mentioned the year of manufacturing of the said motorcycle as 2018 instead of the year 2017 in the policy schedule.  

 

6.             In the sequel of above discussion, we find that the OP sold the motorcycle in the year 2018 to the complainant concealing actual year of manufacturing of the said vehicle i.e. the year 2017. As such, we allow the complaint and direct OP to refund the price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.55,300/- to the complainant.  The OP is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, pain and agony and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. It is made clear that the complainant shall return the vehicle in question to the OP and shall also execute the documents for transferring the vehicle in the name of the OP.  

 

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.       

Pronounced.

 

                March 8, 2019.

 

 

                                                       

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                  Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Manisha)

                                                          Member