Jatinder Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the Milan Cars, (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party is running business of Car Bazar i.e. sale/purchase of cars at Mani Majra. It is alleged that he purchased a 2nd hand car Make VW Vento 1.6 colour white bearing PB-19-G-0027 Chassis No.WVWJ 11608CT009062 Engine No. CLN 174258 from the opposite party vide invoice No. 1407 dated 29.12.2019 for a total consideration of Rs.2,80,000/- Out of this amount, he had paid Rs.1,50,000/- in cash and Rs.1,20,000/- through Bank transactions and remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid for preparation of RC etc. It is further alleged that the vehicle so delivered to him was having major defects, as on the same day, when he came back to his house by driving the above said vehicle, the vehicle was giving troubles as the same was becoming off time and again and he brought this fact to the notice of the opposite party immediately on telephone while in the way and the opposite party asked him to come in the next week along with vehicle. It is further alleged that after thorough check of the vehicle, the complainant came to know that the vehicle in question was not only defective, but also accidental and was repainted. But this fact was not disclosed by the opposite party at the time of sale of the vehicle. It is further alleged that as per advice of opposite party, complainant approached the opposite party along with vehicle and mechanics of the opposite party tried their best to remove the defects, but the same could not be removed. Ultimately the opposite party agreed with all the queries raised by him and kept the vehicle in question and agreed to refund the full price of the same to him. It is further alleged that he had opted to purchase the vehicle in question only because of the assurance given by the opposite party and he had paid for a new and defect free vehicle but the opposite party has delivered a defective vehicle to him.It is further alleged that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite party again committed breach of trust and instead of refunding full price of the vehicle i.e. Rs.2,80,000/- and refunded only Rs.2,50,000/- out of which Rs.1,20,000/- on 05.01.2020 at Union Bank of India Branch Kalanaur District Gurdaspur through bank and remaining amount of Rs.1,30,000/- paid in cash. But illegally withheld amount of Rs.30,000/- of the complainant and not paid the same to him till today intentionally and willfully. It is further alleged that he had been approaching the opposite party regularly and requesting for the payment of remaining amount of Rs.30,000/-, but the opposite party always put the matter with one pretext or the other. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to pay remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. It is further prayed that compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant besides the amount in question on account mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- may also be awarded in favor of the complainant in the interest of justice.

3.      Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that  the complainant is not the consumer of the respondent as such the present complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that the second hand car was purchased by the complainant after fully satisfying himself that the car is in the perfect running condition. He has also brought his own mechanic to satisfy himself about the condition of the car and only after being satisfied he purchased the car. It is not out of place to mention here that the complainant himself brought this car from Chandigarh to Gurdaspur by driving all the way. It is further pleaded that he also continue to  drive the said car at Gurdaspur and when he went back to Chandigarh, the back bumper of the car was broken from where it can be well presumed how recklessly and negligently he Was driving the car. He cannot put the blame on the respondent about the condition of the car. It is further pleaded that the complainant has purchased second hand car after fully satisfying himself about the running condition and other condition of the car and there was no guarantee or warranty on the second hand car as the respondent is not the manufacturer of the car and he is only the commission agent. It is further pleaded that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide this complaint. The respondent is caring on his business at Chandigarh and the alleged deal was also struck at Chandigarh, so the present complaint does not lie in Gurdaspur. It is further pleaded that this Hon’ble Commission has otherwise also has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide this complaint as by agreement it is agreed by the complainant that "All disputes are subject to Chandigarh Jurisdiction Only". So in view of this also this Hon’ble Commission at Gurdaspur has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decided this complaint and the complainant has not come to this commission With clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from the commission. On merits, the opposite party have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with heavy costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jatinder Kumar (Complainant) Ex.C-1/A along-with other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar, Prop. Of Milan Cars as Ex.OPW-1/A along-with other documents Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2.

6.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

8.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had purchased a 2nd hand car from the opposite party for Rs.2,80,000/-vide invoice Ex.C1. However, after purchasing the car the complainant found that the car was having defects and it was accidental car but the said defect and accidental repair was concealed by the opposite party at the time of sale. On being approached the opposite party refunded only amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and refused to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- which amounts to deficiency in service.

10.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and there was no defect in the car and the deal was cancelled as per document Ex.R-1 and the complainant received amount of Rs.2,50,000/- without any protest on 05.01.2020 and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased a 2nd hand car vide Ex.C1 from the opposite party. It is further admitted fact that car was received back by the opposite party on 05.01.2020 and out of total amount of Rs.2,80,000/- amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was returned to the complainant by opposite party and the present complaint is only regarding amount of Rs.30,000/-. The contentions of the counsel for the opposite party that the deal was cancelled and amount was received back without protest is not acceptable, as the opposite party has not been able to show as to on what account amount of Rs.30,000/- was deducted, when the car was returned to the opposite party within one week. Moreover, it is not the case of the opposite party that while again selling the said vehicle the opposite party suffered loss of Rs.30,000/-. As such this Commission is of the view that complainant has fully proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for having withheld an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 05.01.2020 till realization within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order.

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                       President.   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Aug. 08, 2023                                               Member

*YP*