Manmohan Singh filed a consumer case on 16 Sep 2017 against Magic Auto Pvt Ltd. in the West Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/397 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Sep 2017.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058
Date of institution: 25.06.2014
Complaint Case. No.397/14 Date of order: 16.09.2017
IN MATTER OF
Manmohan Singh, 09/15 South Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008
Complainant
VERSUS
Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., True Value Disploay 68/3, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015
Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Head office at Plot No.94, Sec.-20, Marble Market, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
Opposite party
ORDER
R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT
Shri Manmohan Singh named above herein the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint against Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd. herein after referred as the opposite party stating that he purchased one second hand Swift ZXi 2005 car bearing registration No. DL 7CD 6838 from the opposite party on 04.04.2013 for Rs. 2,28,000/-. The opposite party misused clause “As is where is” in sale of the car. Air conditioner, power windows and radio of the car are not working and engine is giving trouble. The complainant several times asked the opposite party to remove the defects/problems of the car and in alternative refund his money. But to no effect. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.2,28,000/- received by the opposite party as price of the car with interest and Rs.30,000/- as compensation.
After notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply while raising preliminary objections that the complainant has failed to point out and describe any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complainant purchased one second hand Swift ZXi 2005 car bearing registration No. DL 7CD 6838 on “As is where is” basis satisfying himself about overall condition of the car with three free services and three months warranty. The complainant has suppressed material facts and filed the complaint with ulterior motive to extract money. He has concocted false version. The complaint is vague and evasive.
On merits the opposite party asserted that the complainant on 04.04.2013 purchased one second hand Swift ZXi 2005 car bearing registration No. DL 7CD 6838 after satisfying himself on “As is where is” basis with three free services and three months warranty. The complainant availed two free services. The car did not give any trouble in warranty. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party controverting stand of the complainant taken in the reply reiterating his stand taken in the complaint and once again prayed for directions to the opposite party.
When Shri Manmohan Singh complainant was asked to file affidavit of evidence he submitted his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. He also relied upon P.W/1 receipts dated 03.04.2013 and 04.04.2013, P.W/2 free service coupon dated 04.04.2013, P.W/4 letter of performa estimate dated 01.02.2015, P.W/5 letter of invoice dated 01.02.2015, P.W/6 and P.W/7 photographs of the car, P.W/8 photocopy of visiting card, P.W/9 courier of complaint dated 01.05.2014 and courier slip, letters dated 01.07.2015 and 20.06.2014, RC of the car bearing No. DL 7CD 6838 and letter of delivery dated 04.04.2013.
When the opposite parties were asked to lead evidence they filed affidavit of Shri O.P. Kathuria G.M. narrating facts of their reply. The opposite parties also relied upon Ex. DW-1/1 Job card nos. JC13004949 and JC13012090 dated 08.06.2013 and 19.09.2013 with accompanying documents, Ex- DW-1/2 Gate Pass dated 04.04.2013 with terms and conditions of sale of the Car.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.
After having heard both learned counsel of the parties and going through the material on record very carefully and thoroughly it is common case of the parties that the complainant on 04.04.2013 purchased one second hand Swift ZXi 2005 Car bearing registration No. DL 7CD 6838 on “As is where is” basis from the opposite party for Rs. 2,28,000/- with three free services and three months warranty. The complainant availed two free services. The Car was purchased on 04.04.2013 and the present complaint is filed on 18.07.2014 after lapse of a period of more than one year. The complainant did not make any complaint within warranty. The parties are bound by the terms of agreement of sale. The opposite parties are not liable for any defect after three months of the sale as per terms of agreement for sale and the term “As is where is” basis. The complainant has not pleaded any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has also failed to prove that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have succeeded to show that as per condition of sale of the Car on “As is where is” basis they are not liable for any action after expiry of period of three months warranty. The car did not give any trouble within warranty. Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order pronounced on : 16.09.2017
(PUNEET LAMBA) ( R.S. BAGRI )
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.