Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/397

Gurbax Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lally Motors Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Kumar Adv.

07 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:397 dated 20.08.2019.                          

                             Date of decision: 07.09.2022.

Gurbax Singh aged 47 years s/o S.Pritam Singh r/o village Sahibpura, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant 

 

 

Lally Motor Pvt. Ltd., G.T.Road, Village Bhattian, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana through its Manager.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate.

For OP                           :         None for the OP

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 14.12.2018, he purchased one Honda City VMT (DE) car bearing registration No.PB-52-B-0014 from the OP for a sum of Rs.11,23,625/-. The warranty of the car started from 29.11.2018 as per the record which shows that a second hand car was sold by the OP to the complainant. It was also found that some old parts have been put in the car. The complainant got the said old parts replaced with new one and even the oil filter was also damaged at the time of its purchase. In fact the employees of the OP never showed the car from the inner/lower part when the car was sold. The car was booked by the complainant at Khanna but the record of the car was available at Patiala which was further showed that it was a second hand car. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 30.04.2019 upon the OP to which the OP gave reply on 03.05.2019 and in the reply it was also admitted by the OP that the entry was inadvertently made by the Data Operator. The complainant approached the OP to replace the old car with a new one but to no avail. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to replace the car with a new one or in the alternative, the OP be made to pay the amount of Rs.11 lacs to the complainant on account of compensation and damages.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and the same deserves to be dismissed. The complaint is trying to mislead the court by concealing and twisting the true facts. The complainant only wants to extract money from the OP on the basis of false and frivolous allegations made in the complaint. According to the OP, the complainant purchased the car in question vide invoice No.94 dated 14.12.2018 and further gave the undertaking for provisional RC/Permanent number and thereafter, the registration no.PB-52-B-0014 was got issued to the vehicle. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle after understanding all the terms and conditions and physically inspecting the vehicle. According to the OP, as a matter of fact, it was inadvertently typed by the clerical staff of the OP that warranty of the car started w.e.f. 29.11.2018. It has been denied if there were some old spare parts in the car or the complainant got the said parts replaced with new one. It has also been denied if the oil filter was also damaged when the complainant purchased the car. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, OP has not formally tendered any evidence but written statement is supported by an affidavit and documents annexure-A and annexure-B have been attached with the written statement which can be read in the evidence of OP.

5.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the OP since 25.04.2022. We have, however, heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the record and proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                By way of this complaint, the complainant has claimed that the OP sold an old car to the complainant vide invoice Ex.C3 for a sum of Rs.11,23,625/-. It has also been claimed that in the document Ex.C4, it is stated that active warranty start date of the car is mentioned as 29.11.2018 whereas invoice Ex.C3 is dated 14.12.2018. According to the counsel for the complainant, this amply shows that it was an old car. Apart from this, it has also been claimed that there were some old spare parts in the car which the complainant got replaced with new one at his own expenses and the oil filter of the car was also damaged when it was purchased.

7.                Having carefully gone through the record, we are of the considered view that merely on the basis that in the document Ex.C4 wherein the starting date of active warranty is mentioned as 29.11.2018, it cannot be said that some old car was sold to the complainant. In this regard it is pertinent to point out that in the written statement the OP has categorically stated that the warranty date of 29.11.2018 was inadvertently typed by the clerical staff of the OP. This part of the written statement has not been controverted by the complainant as he has not chosen to file any replication or rejoinder and even otherwise merely because of active warranty date is mentioned as 29.11.2018, it cannot be presumed that the car was an old one.

8.                Secondly, the complainant has claimed that there were some old parts in the car which he later on got replaced with new one but allegations in this regard are quite vague and ambiguous as the complainant has not specified as to which parts of the car were old one which were got replaced by him. No detail of such parts has been mentioned nor any supportive document has been placed on record as to which spare parts were got replaced. No bill of such spare parts has been placed on record nor any mechanic or automobile engineer has been examined as a witness who could say and prove that the car was, infact, an old car or its parts were replaced at any point of time. Therefore, even the second part of the allegations made in the complaint has not been substantiated by the complainant by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that an old car was sold to him by the OP. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service is made out on the part of the OP.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.09.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma