Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/222/2022

VIKAS GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAYSONS ASSOCIATES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

RBT/Complaint Case No. 222/22

In the matter of:

 

		Vikas Gupta S/o Sh. Vijay Gupta, R/o H. No. 99-100, 1st Floor, A-4 SE, C-4, Rohini, Delhi 110085		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.             3.	Chair/Authorized Person Kaysons Associates Pvt. Ltd., A-41 Saraswati Vihar, Delhi 110034   Chair/Authorized Person ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance ICICI Lombard House 414 Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Mumbai 400025   M/S S.G.A. Securities Limited Through its Authorized Representative At C-619, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi 110034		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		24.02.2018 12.03.2024 14.06.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 02.04.2017 he had purchased a scooter from Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of                  Rs. 92,428/. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 2 had issued the insurance policy of the said vehicle. The period of the policy was from 26.03.2017 to 25.03.2018. Complainant stated that when he got the registration certificate of the vehicle then he shocked to saw that the manufacturing date of the scooter was 10/2016, however, he purchased the said vehicle on 02.04.2017. Complainant stated that he had purchased the BS4 2017 model and Opposite Party No. 1 handed over BS3 2016 model to the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 had issued insurance policy of the said scooter. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 and Complainant had talked for the settlement but the matter was not settled between the parties and he also called at 100. Complainant stated that he visited many times to the office of Opposite Parties but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 had wrongly handed over the scooter BS3 2016 and Opposite Party No. 2 had issued the insurance policy in order to cheat. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for an amount of Rs. 92,428/- along with interest or handed over the model BS4 2017. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 30,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint filed by the Complainant is without any cause of action. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable because the financer of the scooter has not been made a party. It is stated that at the time of purchasing the scooter the Complainant was well aware about its model etc. and after his complete satisfaction the Complainant has purchased the scooter in question.  The Opposite Party No. 1 has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any merit. It is stated that the insurance policy was issued on the basis of the details and declaration given by Opposite Party No. 1. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on its part. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.08.2019.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

5. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party   No. 1, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1
7. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No, 1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 have been supported.
8. Despite grant of opportunities, none has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to file the evidence. Therefore, the right to file the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No 2 was closed vide order dated 02.06.2023.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 to address the arguments. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a scooter from Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of           Rs. 92,428/-. He has purchased the said scooter on 02.04.2017 with the impression that the year of manufacture of the scooter was 2017. His case is that after he received the registration certificate of the said scoter, he came to know that the scooter was manufactured in the month of October, 2016. His case is that he was never told by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the scooter was not 2017 model or that it was not BS4 model.
10. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that at the time of purchasing the scooter, the Complainant was told everything regarding the model etc. of the scooter in question.
11. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2 is that it had issued the insurance policy which shows the year of manufacture 2017 and its case is that the said policy was issued on the basis of the details and declaration given by the Opposite Party No. 1.
12. Admittedly, the Complainant has purchased the scooter in April 2017. It is also an admitted fact that the year of manufacture of the scooter is October, 2016. The defense taken by the Opposite Party No. 1 is that everything i.e. model etc. was told to the Complainant when the Complainant has purchased the said scooter from it. However, no cogent evidence has been led by Opposite Party No. 1 to show that the Complainant was told by it that the scooter was manufactured in October 2016 or that it was not BS4 model. Even, it is not disclosed by Opposite Party No. 1 in its written statement or evidence that by whom the Complainant was told regarding the model etc. of the scooter in question. Therefore, the defense taken by the Opposite Party No. 1 cannot be believed.   
13. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No. 1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
14. Order announced on 14.06.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)        Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)             President