BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.140 of 2015

Date of Instt. 06.04.2015

Date of Decision :16.10.2015

Urmildeep Kaur Ahluwalia wife of Ramjit Singh Ahluwalia, R/o 553, New GTB Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

M/s Goyal Automotive Ltd, GT Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar through its Managing Director/Authorized Person.

.........Opposite party.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Amit Beri Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant in the month of December 2013 booked Hyundai Verna Car by paying some amount in advance to the opposite party and the complainant has further assured the opposite party that she would purchase the abovesaid car in the month of January 2014 and she want that the model of the car be 2014 year manufactured. Accordingly, the complainant had purchased Hyundai Verna Car bearing temporary registration No.PB-08-BV-3244 on 17.1.2014 and at the time of purchase it was assured to the complainant that said vehicle was manufactured in the year 2014 and at that time, the complainant had also paid the charges for preparing registration certificate and insurance with the opposite party. The opposite party got the insurance of the vehicle done and handed over the insurance cover note to the complainant, which shows that the year of manufacturer is 2014 and the opposite party further assured the complainant that the RC of the said car will be delivered after 2-3 months and temporary number was accorded to vehicle of the complainant. In April 2014, the complainant received registration certificate of abovesaid car bearing No.PB-08-CR-1216. In the month of January 2015, when the complainant got the insurance policy of her car renewed, she was shocked to see that the year of manufacturing was shown as 2013 instead of 2014 and after going through the contents of the registration certificate so received by the complainant, she came to know that the year of manufacturing mentioned in the RC was October 2013, instead of 2014. On coming to know about the year of manufacturing of the abovesaid vehicle as 2013 instead of 2014, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party to change the vehicle with a new one or to pay the depreciation charges, as due to manufacturing year 2013, the value of the vehicle of the complainant is getting depreciated then the car manufactured in the year 2014 and the complainant is facing loss due to the act and conduct of the opposite party. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to change the vehicle with new one. She has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the true facts are that the total value of the car was Rs.10,34,840/-, there was insurance amount of Rs.28,282/- and registration certificate charges were Rs.55,200/-, the total comes to Rs.11,18,322/-. The complainant asked for the discount and made the part payment. The complainant paid Rs.10,60,200/- and got the benefit of Rs.58,122/- only on the ground that the manufacturing year of the car was 2013. Inadvertently the insurance cover note is showing the manufacturing year of 2014. But all the other documents including form-21 and other are showing the manufacturing year of 2013. The registration certificate is also showing the manufacturing year of 2013. The complainant was having the knowledge about all the these facts at the time of purchase of the vehicle. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased one car from opposite party vide retail invoice dated 17.1.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.10,34,840/-. The opposite party has also produced this retail invoice dated 17.1.2014 and same is Ex.OP2. According to the complainant, she wanted to purchase car of 2014 model and opposite party misrepresenting the car to be of 2014 model sold the same to the complainant and even in the insurance policy the year of manufacture was mentioned as 2014. Counsel for the complainant contended that opposite party has cheated the complainant by selling the car of 2013 model representing the same to be of 2014 model. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant was very much aware that she has purchased the car of 2013 and got benefit of Rs.58,122/- for the same. He further contended that inadvertently in the insurance policy the model was mentioned as that of 2014 because the policy was done in the year 2014 and by mistake in the policy the year of manufacture was mentioned as 2014. He further contended that in all other documents, the year of manufacturing of the car is mentioned as 2013. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The complainant herself produced copy of certificate of registration Ex.C2 wherein year of manufacturing is mentioned as "10/2013". Registration date is mentioned as 13.3.2014. So on receipt of certificate of registration the complainant must have become aware of the model of the car as that of 2013 but she remained silent till sending the legal notice dated 4.2.2015 Ex.C4 which was duly replied by the opposite party. In case the complainant has not purchased the car of 2013 model for getting discount or benefit of model, she would not have remained silent for such a long period. Ex.OP1 is sale certificate and in the sale certificate also month and year of manufacture is mentioned October 2013. So at least from the sale certificate, the complainant should have become aware that the car purchased by him is of 2013 model. The version of the complainant that she became aware of the model when in the insurance policy for the next year the model was mentioned as of 2013 instead of 2014 can not be accepted. She must have become aware of the model of the car purchased by her from the sale certificate and certificate of registration of the car. In case she had not purchased the car of 2013 model in order to get discount or benefit, she would have immediately initiated action against the opposite party. The complainant has failed to prove by leading any cogent and reliable evidence that the opposite party sold the car by misrepresenting the same to be of 2014 model instead of 2013.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.10.2015 Member Member President