BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.164 of 2019
Date of Institution: 04.04.2019
Date of Decision : 11.06.2019
Surender @ Surender Pal aged 38 years son of Shri Om Parkash resident of village Kuttabadh, Tehsil Ellenabad District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Bansal Motors, Sirsa Road, Ellenabad, District Sirsa, (R.S.O. Raja Motors Sirsa) through its proprietor/Manager.
- Bajaj Auto Ltd. Akurdi, Pune, through its authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL…………….MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present Sh.Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased a brew new CT-100 Bajaj Motor cycle from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.33,500/- on 12.08.2017 and the same was got insured with National Insurance Company Limited in which the model of the vehicle was mentioned as 2017. The complainant had purchased the vehicle with the finance arranged by Op No.1 and it did not issue any document to the complainant and stated that the vehicle would be registered by it at its own. In the first week of September, 2017, the OP No.1 had supplied the registration certificate alongwith photocopy of the bill which was issued on 31.03.2017 whereas the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 12.08.2017. In the registration certificate, the model of the vehicle has been mentioned as 09/2016. The complainant lodged protest with the Ops but to avail and due to this the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.10,000/- on account of old model of motor cycle sold by Op No.1. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notices were sent to the Ops through registered post but the same had not received back even after lapsing of mandatory period of 30 days therefore, the Ops were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.05019.
3. The complainant, in evidence, has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A besides documents invoice Ex.C1, insurance cover note Ex.C2 and registration certificate E.C3.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the contents. It is proved on record that the motor cycle purchased by the complainant from Op No.1, which was manufactured by Op No.2. As per allegations of the complainant, the Op No.1 had sold the old model motor cycle to him as he had purchased the vehicle on 12.08.2017 but the OP No.1 had issued the bill dated 31.03.2017 resulting into loss of Rs.10,000/- on account of old model as in the registration certificate the model of the vehicle has been shown as 2016. Since the Ops did not appear to rebut the plea and evidence of complainant, as such, evidence led by complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.
7. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Op No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of difference of model. We also direct the OP No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 11.06.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
