Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/77

Harmandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.H.Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh,Adv

14 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPER

 

                       Consumer Complaint No. :      77 of 16.07.2019

                       Date of decision                        :         14.11.2019

 

 

Harmandeep Singh aged about 37 years, son of Sh. Surinder Singh, resident of VPO Ghanauli, Tehsil & District Ropar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. M.H. Automobiles, Near J.R. Theatre, Kurali Road, Rupnagar (Punjab) through its Managing Director

2. Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Private Limited, Commercial Complex II, Sector 49-50 Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122018                                                                                                           ...Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant 

Sh. Udhey Verma, Adv. counsel for O.Ps.

 

                                           ORDER

 

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Harmandeep Singh aged about 37 years, son of Sh. Surinder Singh, resident of VPO Ghanauli, Tehsil & District Roper, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the said Activa with new one which is manufactured in the year 2019; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.     

2.       Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one Honda Activa from O.P. No.1. and while its purchase, he was very keen that it should be purchased in the year 2019 and he has even asked O.P. No.1 regarding the manufacture year of the vehicle in question. On the asking by the complainant, the O.P. No.1 had assured that manufacture year of the vehicle in question is 2019 and fresh activa was being delivered. Complainant had also got done the insurance from O.P No.1 and the year of manufacture was also written 2019 on the policy note. After few days when the complainant received the registration certificate of the vehicle in question then he came to know that O.P. No.1 had delivered the vehicle in question to him, manufactured in 2018. Thereafter, the complainant immediately approached OP No.1 for the replacement of the vehicle in question as OP No.1 had clearly cheated the complainant and had suppressed the true facts from him. But OP No.1 had delayed the matter on one pretext or the other and finally the OP No.1 refused to replace the vehicle in question with a fresh new one of year 2019 manufactured. Hence, this complaint.   

 3.      On being put to the notice, the O.Ps. appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has not approached before this forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is stated that the answering OP had explained the complainant that as a normal industry practice we  sell our stocks on FIFO (First in First Out) basis and the Activa Scooter that he is buying is manufactured in 2018. OP No.1 explained the complainant that the date of purchase on the registration certificate of the Activa Scooter will be 2019 but the date of manufacture will remain as 2018 as it was manufactured in October 2018. The OP No.1 had received the vehicles on 28.12.2019 which was manufactured in October 2019, the report of the same is Annexure C. The complainant told the OP No.1 that he had understood the same and he had no problem with this as he is not buying a perishable commodity but later on the complainant tried to take undue advantage by blackmailing the OP No.1 on this pretext saying that either OP No.1 pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- for the small clerical mistake on the part of insurance company in insurance policy or he would file legal complaint against it to recover the undue/illegal compensation. It is further stated that deficiency was only on the part of insurance company because insurance company has mentioned the wrong manufacturing year in the insurance policy. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Sachin Gupta, Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.       Complainant counsel Sh. Gurpreet Singh, argued that on 23.3.2019, the complainant purchased one Honda Activa for a sum of Rs.54,176/- vide separate bill. The complainant purchased the said vehicle in the month of March 2019 whereas the O.P. sold the Activa pertaining to the Model 2018. When the complainant purchased in the month of March 2019 and selling the old Model Activa to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. He prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

7.       O.P. counsel Sh. Udhey Verma, argued that admittedly the purchased Activa was manufactured in the month of October 2018 which was sold without any concealment of manufacturing year. O.P. counsel referred the Provisional RC Ex.C2, affidavit, legal correspondence, tax invoice and the corrected insurance policy. In the light of said documentary evidence, O.P. counsel prayed that there is no concealment of facts, no deficiency was made out rather the incorrect year of manufacturing mentioned in the insurance policy does not correlate the O.Ps. that was the error committed by the insurance company. Rather the learned counsel in the light of Mark A as well as Ex.OP5 and OP6 prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.       

8.       Complainant purchased the Activa make Honda from the O.P. and the sale purchase is admitted between the parties. When sale is admitted, payment is not denied and so is the delivery of the vehicle by the O.P. to the complainant and the depositing of the sale price. So, it is a consumer dispute, complaint is maintainable and this forum has territorial jurisdiction.

9.       Coming to the real fact, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.P. or not. The specific plea of the complainant is that O.P. had concealed the year of manufacturing Honda Activa of October 2018 which was sold in the month of March 2019 by receiving the entire sale price. It is also pleaded that when the manufacturing year is of 2018 then the complainant is entitled to special concession.

10.     Complainant relied upon legal notice dated 12.4.2019 Ex.C1, Privisional RC Ex.C2 with speaks the sale price Rs.42,332/- and year of manufacturing October 2018. Ex.C3 is the delivery challan vide which OP charged the total amount of Rs.54,176/- from the complainant on 23.3.2019. Ex.C4 is the tax invoice which correlates with Ex.C3 qua the price of the vehicle Rs.54,176/-. Further there is photocopy of the Iffco Tokio Insurance Policy i.e. dated 25.3.2019 till 24.3.2020 and year of manufacturing is mentioned 2019.

11.     To rebut the complainant version, the O.P. also placed on file tax invoice, Provisional RC, bill vide which OP received the vehicle from the manufacturer then tried to prove that vide Ex.OP5 vide which Honda Activa was sold to the complainant through the exchange offer. Complainant was the owner of one Activa Honda model 2011, Registration No.PB-12-N-1569. The O.P. adjusted the old vehicle of Rs.19,000/-. The said amount was deducted from the sale price but the O.P. remained unable in selling the said activa against the equal price of purchase, rather sold the same with a loss of Rs.3000/- to Rajwinder Kaur. O.P. also placed on file photocopy of the policy dated 7.5.2019 vide which the manufacturing year 2018 was corrected.

12.     Complainant sold his old Activa through exchange and its sale price of Rs.19,000/- was adjusted towards the price of the vehicle purchase on March 2019. Provisional RC Ex.C2-Ex.OP3 proves the manufacturing year 2018. O.P. exhibited the document which is valuable piece of evidence between the parties when the manufacturing year was 2018 all the documents were placed on the file which proves that in selling the Activa on 23.3.2019 O.P. did not play, fraud or there was any deficiency in service etc. So far the year of manufacturing 2019 in the policy i.e. between the complainant and insurance company. Relied upon the said document, no benefit can be extended in favour of the complainant. Hence, the complaint is held without merit.

13.     In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are leaving to bear their own cost. 

14.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.     

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.14.11.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER