BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.119 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 18.04.2019

      Date of Decision: 01.06.2023

Shri Suraj Parkash Advocate son of Shri Surjan Dass, resident of House No.210, Green Park, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Cargo Motors (Punjab) Pvt. Ltd., 40, G. T. Road, Near Bus       Stand, Jalandhar through its Authorized Signatory.

2.       Honda Motor Cycles & Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Office Commercial Complex, 11, Sector 49-50, Golf Course, Extension         Road, Gurugram Haryana through its Managing Director.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   Sh. Suteekshan Samrol, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 is the dealer of Honda products while the OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the product, having Registered Office at Gurugram Haryana. The complainant purchased Activa G-5 Scooter bearing Engine No.NOJF50E87225564 Chassis No.ME4GF50AMJ8225547 from the OP No.1 on 24.2.2019 vide Invoice 12030 dated 24.2.2019 and 12057 dated 25.2.2019 for a total sum of Rs.64,700.00. Later on the vehicle was registered as PB-08-EF-7793 through OP No.1. After about 40 days of the purchase of the vehicle, the R.C. of the vehicle was delivered to the complainant and the complainant was stunned to know that the vehicle purchased by him on 24.2.2019 was 2018 Model. The complainant approached the OP No.1 and told about the fraud played by the company on him, but the OP No.1 did not give any proper response, rather put off the complainant with lame excuses. The OP No.1 sold an old vehicle to the complainant against payment of a fresh model of the Scooter, thus deceived and misrepresented the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs is unfair and deceptive trade practice, negligence and deficiency, which has caused great mental stress, agony and loss of money and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the old scooter sold to the complainant with scooter of 2019 Model free of cost and in alternative, to return the purchase price of the scooter. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses also.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is further averred that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint for the vehicle bearing Engine No.NOJF50E87225564 and Chassis No.ME4GF50AMJ8225547. The complaint of the complainant is based upon the vague and incorrect facts. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground only. It is further averred that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. The complainant has concealed the factum of availing the discount by him in lieu of purchasing 2018 model vehicle. The complainant has also concealed the factum of booking & purchasing of 2018 model intentionally by him from the OP No.1. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts from this Forum and misrepresenting the actual facts in his complaint. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed out rightly as it discloses no facts or occasion giving a cause of action to file a complaint under Consumer Protection Act against the answering OP. The complaint has been filed on the basis of manipulated, managed and created cause of action with a view to make undue pecuniary gains. The replying OP is not in any manner responsible for the alleged payment demanded by the complaint through this complaint. It is further averred that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The adjudication of the present matter will require recording of evidence as such a numbers of documents and the statement of the witnesses are needed to dispose of the present controversy. As such this Forum cannot try the present complaint. It is further averred that the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous and vexatious and filed with malafide intention to compel the answering OP to unlawful demands and claims of the complainant. The complainant is indulging in speculative litigation by the present false complaint out of sheer greed. On merits, the factum with regard to purchase of the vehicle i.e. Activa by the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for both the parties very minutely.

6.                The complainant has proved on record that he has purchased one Activa G-5 Scooter from the OPs. He has proved on record the RC of the Activa Ex.C-4. The receipts showing the payment of Rs.63,500/- Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. Ex.C-3 is the receipt for the registration in the warranty. The grudge of the complainant is that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as when he received the RC, he found that the vehicle purchased by him on 24.02.2019 was 2018 model and when he contacted the OP and informed them about the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.

7.                The OP has proved on record the documents showing that the complainant was well within the knowledge of the fact that he is purchasing the vehicle of 2018 model. It has been alleged by the OPs that Rs.1200/- are yet to be received from the complainant. More so, wrong chassis number and engine number has been mentioned by the complainant in the complaint.

8.                Perusal of Ex.C-4 and Ex.OP1/1 shows that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was having engine No.JF50E87225564 and it was having Chassis No.ME4JF50AMJ8225547, whereas in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned the engine no.NOJF50E87225564. Similarly, in Chassis number, he has mentioned ME4GF50AMJ8225547. This clearly shows that the complainant never purchased the Activa G-5 Scooter from OP having the engine number and chassis number mentioned in the complaint.

9.                Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the complainant purchased the Activa G-5 Scooter from the OPs. Now the question is as to whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs while informing the complainant about the model of the vehicle. Perusal of Ex.OP1/1 shows that the vehicle was for Rs.64,700/- and the amount of Rs.63,500/- was received by the OPs and balance has been shown as Rs.1200/-. In this document, it has been specifically mentioned about the model i.e. 2018 model. This document Ex.OP1/1 has been duly signed by the complainant. The document Ex.OP1/2, which is the payment detail and detail of the vehicle also shows that Rs.1200/- are yet to be paid by the complainant and he had already obtained the rebate of Rs.1500/- from the OPs. The value of the vehicle was Rs.66,200/- and after deducting the rebate, the total amount came to be Rs.64,700/-, out of which the complainant paid Rs.63,500/-. In this document also it has been specifically mentioned in the column of remarks about the model i.e. Model 2018. This document has also been duly signed by the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove that he was ever informed about the Model 2019 of the Acvita purchased by him. The document on which the model has been specifically mentioned was duly signed by the complainant. The complainant is well educated person and is an Advocate. It cannot be presumed that a person of such a Calibre would sign the document without going through its contents or without getting the information or without knowing the detail of the vehicle. The complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Thus, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

01.06.2023         Member                          Member              President