BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.43 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 17.04.2008<br /> Date of Service: 22.05.2008<br /> Decided On: 01.08.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> Kuljit Singh (aged 35 years) son of Sh.Harbans Singh, resident of Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Moga, Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> <br /> M/s.Farid Automobiles, New Gulabi Bagh, G.T.Road, Moga through its proprietor.<br /> <br /> Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Ashok Goyal, Adv.counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.H.S.Lodhi, Adv.counsel for the OP.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Kuljit Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against M/s.Farid Automobiles, New Gulabi Bagh, G.T.Road, Moga through its proprietor (herein-after referred to as ‘Farid Auto’ - opposite party directing them to refund the entire purchase price of Rs.44400/- of motor cycle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum or in alterative to replace the said motor cycle with new one having 2008 model and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment. <br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Kuljit Singh complainant purchased a new motor cycle make Hero Honda, model Sup.Splender having temporary registration no.PB-29-9513 vide invoice no.1728 for Rs.44400/- on 18.02.2008 from OP-Farid Auto. That at the time of purchase, the OP-Farid Auto shown him the motor cycle believing the manufacturing year of 2008 but to the utter surprise of the complainant, he noticed the manufacturing year as 2007 in temporary certificate of registration and form no.21 issued by OP-Farid Auto. That by selling motor cycle of 2007 model instead of 2008 model, the OP-Farid Auto had misrepresented the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP-Farid Auto and requested to refund him the purchase price or to replace the said vehicle with new one having 2008 model and also to pay the damages suffered by him due to their wrongful act and conduct, but the OP-Farid Auto flatly refused to admit his rightful claim. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OP-Farid Auto had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.20000/-as compensation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP-Farid Auto, who appeared through Sh. H.S.Lodhi Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the complainant has not arrayed the manufacturing company as party; that the OP-Farid Auto has been sued through its proprietor whereas it is a registered partnership firm. That the complainant being well educated person has no cause of action against the OP-Farid Auto as he was apprised with the model/ year of manufacturing of the said vehicle and the same was even categorically and specifically mentioned in the sale certificate which is duly signed by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant himself took the delivery of the motor cycle in question after signing all the relevant documents with temporary number and further for registration of the vehicle from the transport authority. Further the year of manufacturing of the said vehicle was also specifically mentioned in the temporary number issued to him and the same was also duly signed by the complainant. Above all he had also been apprised of the year of manufacturing of the said motor cycle orally and even he had bargained for the price of the said vehicle and accordingly the OP-Farid Auto gave him cash discount of Rs.500/- in lieu of the same as actual prevailing market price of the said particular model/ version of the motor cycle was Rs.44900/- whereas Rs.44400/- had been charged from him. Even at the time of delivery of the vehicle one challan form was also issued to the complainant in which each and everything has also been specifically mentioned i.e. chassis number, engine number, quality, colour, key number, year of manufacturing, amount and VAT. Even in addition to the same, the said declaration had also been got signed from the complainant when he selected the model of the vehicle and received discount in lieu of the same. That the complainant under the greediness and with the intention to fetch money from the OP-Farid Auto has filed this false and frivolous complaint. On merits, the OP-Farid Auto took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of sale certificate Ex.A2, copy of temporary registration certificate Ex.A3, copy of cash memo Ex.A4, copy of legal notice Ex.A5, postal receipts Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 and closed his evidence.<br /> 6. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP-Farid Auto tendered the affidavit Ex.R1 of Davinder Singh partner of OP-Farid Auto, copy of Form A Ex.R2, copy of From C Ex.R3, copy of instrument of partnership Ex.R4, copy of sale certificate Ex.R5, copy of cash memo Ex.R6, copy of temporary registration mark Ex.R7, copy of challan Ex.R8, copy of E-mail Ex.R9, copy of invoice Ex.R10, copy of job card Ex.R11, copy of retail invoice Ex.R12 and closed their evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Ashok Goyal ld. counsel for the complainant, Sh.H.S.Lodhi ld.counsel for OP-Farid Auto and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 8. Sh.Ashok Goyal, ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that OP-Farid Auto had sold 2007 model motor cycle instead of 2008 model to the complainant by misrepresentation and therefore, they are liable to refund its price or to replace the vehicle in question with 2008 model and also to pay compensation for mental tension and harassment caused to the complainant. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has no merit. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a new motor cycle make Hero Honda, model Sup.Splender having temporary registration no.PB-29-9513 vide invoice no.1728 for Rs.44400/- on 18.02.2008 from OP-Farid Auto. At the time of purchase of the vehicle in question, the OP-Farid Auto had given sale certificate Ex.R5 (Ex.A2 the same document) wherein in the column no.8, year of manufacture had been mentioned as ‘2007’ instead of 2008. Similarly, copy of temporary registration mark Ex.R7 (Ex.A3, the same document) and copy of challan Ex.R8 bearing no.2521 dated 18.2.2008 were also given to the complainant where in the column of description of vehicle, the year of manufacture has been mentioned as ‘2007’. All the aforementioned documents have duly been got signed from Kuljit Singh complainant. <br /> 9. Now the question for determination is whether the OP-Farid Auto had sold the motor cycle of 2007 model instead of 2008 by misrepresentation to the complainant. The answer to this question is in negative. The aforesaid documents i.e. sale certificate Ex.R5 (Ex.A2 the same document), copy of temporary registration mark Ex.R7 (Ex.A3, the same document) and copy of challan Ex.R8 which are duly got signed from the complainant clearly show that the complainant himself chose to purchase the motor cycle in question of 2007 model after getting the cash discount of Rs.500/- and therefore, after the purchase of the same, he can not be allowed to change his version. Had he not received the cash discount of Rs.500/- from OP-Farid Auto at the time of purchase of motor cycle in question, then he would not have signed the aforesaid documents given to him by OP-Farid Auto. On this point, the judgement in Appeal no.1140 dated 2005 decided on 16.9.2005 in title Deepak Kumar Vs. K.S.Motor Cycle Division passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Pb.Chandigarh is quite applicable to the facts of the present case. <br /> 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that OP-Farid Auto had sold the motor cycle in question of 2007 model instead of 2008 by misrepresentation to him. <br /> 11. To support the aforesaid contention, the OP-Farid Auto tendered the affidavit Ex.R1 of Davinder Singh partner of OP-Farid Auto, copy of Form A Ex.R2, copy of From C Ex.R3, copy of instrument of partnership Ex.R4, copy of sale certificate Ex.R5, copy of cash memo Ex.R6, copy of temporary registration mark Ex.R7, copy of challan Ex.R8, copy of E-mail Ex.R9, copy of invoice Ex.R10, copy of job card Ex.R11, copy of retail invoice Ex.R12. On the other hand, the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and other documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A7 tendered by complainant have no relevancy and can not be given any effect.<br /> 12. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:01.08.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />