Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/67

Sadhu Ram Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amandeep Singh Minhas, Adv.

12 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                            Consumer Complaint No. :  67 of 14.09.2016

                                               Date of decision           : 12.05.2017

 

  Sadhu Ram Bhatia, son of Sh. Nama Ram Bhatia, Resident of Ward No.11,               Ambedkar Nagar, Garshanker, District Hoshiarpur.

 

                                                                                        ....Complainant

 

                                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Bhakra Service Station Pvt. Ltd, Rupnagar- Kurali Road, NH-21, Near Toll Barrier, Rupnagar, District Rupnagar, through its Managing Director 

2. M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd, Unit Number C-113-114, First Floor Office Suite, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director   

 

                                                                                      ...Opposite Parties

 

 

                              Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer

                              Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

 

                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                      SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

                    Sh. Manjeet Singh Nagra Advocate, counsel for complainant

                    Sh. Mandeep Moudgil Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party                    No.1

                    Smt. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Advocate, counsel for Oppsite            Party No.2

 

ORDER

                              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

                    Sh. Sadhu Ram Bhatia has filed this complaint under Section 12              of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as                        ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred                     to as O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

                     1)      To replace the vehicle i10 Grand Sports 1.1. DSL Pure                                       White Colour bearing Chassie No.MALA851DLEMI                                118758 E, Engine No.D3FAEM135267, Key No.Po766                                     vide bill dated 3.11.2015 

                    2)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of                                 mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him,

                    3)      To pay Rs.2,50,000/- as damages.

                      4)     Any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deems fit                           and proper regarding the circumstances of the present                              complaint may also be granted to the complainant, in                                         the interest of justice

       2.            In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a I 10 Grand Sports 1.1. DSL Pure White Colour vehicle, bearing Chassie No.MALA851DLEM118758E, Engine No.D3FAEM135267, Key No.P0766, vide bill dated 3.11.2015 from the O.P. No.1, the authorized dealer of O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 got it registered with Punjab Transport Department. In the sale letter, the year of manufacture has been mentioned as 2014 and when he raised the objection, then the official of the O.P. No.1., told him that it is only a clerical mistake and in the registration certificate, the model of the vehicle would be mentioned as 2015. But on receipt of registration certificate, he got shocked to see that model of the said vehicle was mentioned as 2014 instead of 2015. He immediately, approached and requested the O.P. No.1, either to get corrected the model of the car in the Registration Certificate from the registering authority or to replace the said car. Immediately, after the purchase of the said vehicle, its market value depreciated as it was of 2014 model. By selling an old model vehicle the O.Ps have cheated him. Hence, this complaint.

   3.             On being put to notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant have no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Forum. On merits,  it is stated that complainant purchased I 10 Grand Sports 1.1. DSL car Pure White Colour through Canteen Store Department, bearing Chassie No.MALA851DLEM118758E, Engine No.D3FAEM135267, Key No.P0766, vide bill dated 3.11.2015 from the answering O.P. manufactured in the year 2014. Even in the Insurance Cover, the year of manufacture of the said vehicle has been mentioned as 2014. The complainant himself has given an undertaking, stating that he has purchased a new vehicle, having manufacturing year, 2014, from the O.P. No.1. He has also signed the new vehicle hand over form and check list, apart from it, he has also given his full satisfaction to the vehicle of 2014 model, by filing up and signing the delivery customer satisfaction report and he has also given full quality rating for the said vehicle to it. The complainant has taken a discount of Rs. 40003 because the vehicle was of Model 2014. In the provisional Registration Certificate, the date of manufacture has been mentioned as 2014. The complainant purchased the vehicle which was manufactured in the year 2014, in order to get the benefit of discount. No mistake has been committed by the O.P. No.1, thus, it cannot be said to be deficient in providing services and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint against it. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with cost.

4.                   The O.P. No.2 has also filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint filed by the complainant and averments made therein against the answering O.P. are false, frivolous and vexatious; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased the vehicle manufactured by it from its dealer i.e. O.P. No.1. It is stated that answering O.P. deals with all its dealers on ‘principal to principal basis’ and it is not responsible for any act or omission of any of its dealer. Since the car purchased by the complainant does not suffer from any manufacturing defect, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from it. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with cost.

                     

5.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. S.K. Chhabra, Managing Director Ex.OP1/1 along with documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/16 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Sukomal Satyen, Assistant Manager of M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited Ex.OP2/1 and copy of undertaking Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

6.                   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through of the file record, carefully, including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

7.                   Admittedly, complainant purchased the vehicle in question on 3.11.2015, from O.P. No.1, manufactured by O.P. No.2. The grievance of the complainant is that the O.Ps. by selling him, a old model car have cheated him. On the other hand, the stand of the O.P. No.1 is that the complainant had purchased the car in question purposely as he got heavy discount of Rs.40003/- and has given an undertaking. The plea of the O.P. No.2 is that the complainant has purchased the car in question from its dealer i.e. O.P. No.1. It deals with all its dealers on ‘principal to principal basis’ and as such, it is not responsible if any wrong has been done by O.P. No.1. From the perusal of Voucher and receipt, Ex.OP1/10, it is evident that discount of Rs.40003/- was given to the complainant for purchase of Grand i10 Sports DSL, manufacture year 2014. In the undertaking, Ex.OP1-5/Ex.OP2-2, given by the complainant, it is stated that he is fully satisfied on purchase of car of model 2014. From the documents referred above, it is abundantly clear that the complainant himself has opted to buy the 2014 model car and has availed heavy discount. Thus, we do not find any substance in the contention of the complainant that O.Ps by selling him a old model car have cheated him. As such, we do not find any merits in the present complaint, consequently, we dismiss the same. The parties are left to bear their own cost.    

 9.                         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                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated .12.05.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                   (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                       MEMBER.