Haryana

Kurukshetra

229/2018

Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Metro Motor - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Sharma

03 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.229 of 2018

Date of Instt.:25.10.2018

Date of Decision: 03.02.2021

 

Mohan Singh son of Shri Manshu Singh, resident of village Kaulapur,Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

1.M/s Metro Motors Pvt.Limited, Head Office at: 10^th Mile stone, G.T.RToad, Village and Post Office Mohra, Ambala, through its Head Manager.

2.M/s Metro Motors Pvt.Limited, Branch Office at: Shop No.164/3, near Gita Dwar, Pipli, Disitrict Kurukshetra, through its Prop.

 

 

                ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Shri Rajender Morthala Advocate for the complainant.     

Shri Mohit Tayal Advocate for the opposite parties.

ORDER

                  

                 This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Mohan Singh  against Metro Motors etc, the opposite parties.

2.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a new Tata Magic Iris from OPs on 26.06.2018 against a price of Rs.2,45,000/- with warranty. It is further averred that the complainant got the said vehicle registered with the Concerned Registration Authority at Thanesar on 20.07.2018 vide registration No. HR-65A-2208 and on receipt of the registration certificate, when he checked registration certificate, he came to know that the manufacturing date of the said vehicle was mentioned as 09/2016. When the complainant enquired about the matter, he came to know that he gave him a old vehicle with dilapidated condition and thus the OPs cheated the complainant.  The complainant is also suffering difficulty in the vehicle to the extent that the tyre and tubes of the vehicle are in damaged condition  which any where got punctured.  The vehicle was giving very low mileage and when the complainant got the checked the said problem from the mechanic, he told the complainant that the oil tank of the vehicle is very rusty.  The complainant immediately contacted the OPs and requested them either to replace the said vehicle or to return the amount  taken at the time of purchase of the said vehicle including registration charges to the complainant,  but the OPs did not hear any word of the complainant, rather threatened the complainant not to come again which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs has filed the present complaint and prayed OPs be directed either to replace the vehicle of the complainant or to return the amount taken by the OPs from the complainant for sale of the vehicle alongwith registration charges of Rs.20,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable to the extent that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle and he had opted to get the vehicle registered at his own and accordingly a letter dated 07.07.2018 was sent and executed by him and thereafter the payment was refunded vide  cheque No. 097053 dated 11.08.2018 of Rs.22,000/- alongwith the forwarding letter dated 11.08.2018 which was duly received by him, hence there is no deficiency in services nor any negligence on the part of the OPs and so much so a sum of Rs.61740/- was given as discount and the vehicle was duly financed from Tata Motors Limited and again a total sum of Rs.90,391/- was given as discount for the purchase of vehicle in the month of June, 2018 of Model 2016, hence the complaint is not maintainable. Everything was made clear to him and a heavy discount was also given and it is wrong to allege that an old vehicle with dilapidated condition  and there is no question of cheating and fraud with the complainant.  It is also submitted that there is no question of replacement of the vehicle and other charges etc. and the complainant was never threatened as alleged by him. While denying all other allegations, preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction etc. Were raised and prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed.

 

3.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence.

 

4.             On the other hand, OPs in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 and closed their evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the  material available on the case file.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant argued that he had purchased a new Tata Magic Iris from OPs on 26.06.2018 against a price of Rs.2,45,000/- with warranty. It is argued that the complainant got the said vehicle registered  on 20.07.2018 vide registration No. HR-65A-2208 and on receipt of the registration certificate, he came to know that the manufacturing date of the said vehicle was mentioned as 09/2016. When the complainant enquired about the matter, he came to know that  OPs gave him an old vehicle with dilapidated condition and thus the OPs cheated the complainant.  Tyres of the vehicle were old and in dilapidated condition.  The vehicle was giving very low mileage and when the complainant got the checked the said problem from the mechanic, he told the complainant that the oil tank of the vehicle is very rusty.  The complainant immediately contacted the OPs and requested them either to replace the said vehicle or to return the amount  taken at the time of purchase of the said vehicle including registration charges to the complainant,  but the OPs did not hear, rather threatened the complainant not to come again which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Thus learned counsel for the complainant has prayed for replacement of the vehicle or to refund the cost of the vehicle alongwith compensation.

7.             On the other hand, while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement, learned counsel for OPs argued that the complainant had purchased the vehicle of 2016 at his own will and he was given discount for the same and  he has returned the amount  deposited by him for registration and now the complainant is stopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint.

8.             In this case the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant are without any force. Perusal of the document Ex.C-3 i.e. tax invoice shows that the  cost of the said vehicle was Rs.2,77,414.69 and the complainant was given concession of Rs.90,391.79 and after adding tax etc. the complainant had only paid Rs.2,45,000.00  to the OPs.  Ex.R-1 satisfaction letter/certificate was also signed by the complainant admitting therein that the vehicle was of 2016 model and was in running condition. In the document Ex.R-1, it is also mentioned that the complainant  was satisfied with the staff of Metro Motors. In the document Ex.R-2, the complainant has signed the version that he has purchased the vehicle of 2016 and he will use the same for commercial purpose. Vide document Ex.R-3,  Metro Motors, Commercial Vehicle Dealer had given two cheques to the Branch Manager, Metro Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Ex.R-4 is the sale letter showing that the complainant had purchased the  vehicle of 2016 Model. Vide application Ex.R-5, the complainant has stated that he will get the vehicle registered at his own and he will submit the photostate copy of the RC and he be returned the amount of Rs.22000/- and consequently OPs returned the amount of Rs.22000/-, as shown in Ex.R-7 to the complainant which was deposited by the complainant for registration charges.   Thus, it is clear that the complainant has got discount in the cost of the vehicle being old model of 2016 and he had purchased the said vehicle with his own sweet will and there is no fault or deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, therefore, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed.

9.             In view of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed without any relief to the complainants. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Commission.

Dt.:03.02.2021                                                            (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                                                                                  President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),         (Neelam)       

 Member                              Member.