Complainant Naresh Kumar Goyal through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to deliver purchased vehicle with the make of 2016 or to pay the discount/compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to him.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 18.01.2016 he purchased Mahindera KUV-100 K8 vehicle from the opposite parties and the same was delivered to him by the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party told the complainant that the year of make of purchased vehicle was 2016. He has further pleaded that since the purchased vehicle was financed from Union Bank of India Branch Batala, so all the papers regarding the said vehicle was not delivered to him and only insurance and a delivery acknowledgement note/gate pass was delivered to him at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The opposite parties told him that the other papers i.e. sale letter and other relevant documents will be delivered later on to the bank who financed the vehicle. To his utter surprise the opposite parties have delivered the abovesaid vehicle to him which was manufactured in the year 2015 and the month of its manufacture was given as November 2015 in the sale letter. Thus is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared and filed their written reply stating therein that the opposite parties are unnecessarily been dragged in the present litigation from the recital of the complaint and the present case is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties as the manufacturer of the Mahindra has not been arrayed as party in the present complaint and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it was admitted that on 18.1.2016 the complainant purchased Mahindra KUV – 100 K8 vehicles from the opposite parties and the same was delivered to complainant by the office of opposite party no.1. It was also admitted that the purchaser vehicle was financed from Union Bank of India Branch Batala. Actually, the vehicle Mahindra KUV – 100 K8 was launched by opposite party no.1 on 16th Jan 2016 and customers particular vehicle was on the display. The complainant after watching the vehicle the display showed his desire to purchase the vehicle instantly and approach the opposite party no.1. It was told to the complainant by the opposite party no.1 that there is a waiting period for this vehicle and he was to book this vehicle and the same will be delivered to him in two months but the complainant requested opposite party no.1 for immediate delivery of the vehicle as he wanted the first piece. To oblige the humble request of the complainant, opposite party no.1 agreed to deliver the vehicle to the complainant. The provisional registration certificate is clearly starting the year of manufacturing which was given to the complainant and the complainant was fully satisfied at that time. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties because date of manufacture was in knowledge of the complainant at the time of the delivery of the vehicle. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
5. Sh.Nitin Kumar Administrator of the opposite party has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
6. We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as available on the complaint records (as duly produced forth by both the litigants) along with the scope of the adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some of the documents vital for the adjudication of the present dispute in question; of course, in the very back-drop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the two sides.
7. We find that the present dispute has resulted on account of the complainant’s allegation that the OP1 Vendor has sold/delivered him the 2015 Model Mahindra KUV-100 K8 vehicle on 18.01.2016 as the new Model Make 2016. It has been further alleged that at the time of sale/delivery, the Model 2015 was not disclosed and he was intentionally delivered its insurance cover and delivery note/gate pass only and not the full papers to suppress its Make Model Year 2015 of Mfg. etc. However, the complainant later found from the related sale letter that the vehicle’s month of manufacture has been November’ 2015 and hence the present complaint with the prayed relief of cost and compensation besides the rebate of Rs.1.0 Lac as applicable to the sale of vehicles with previous year’s make and model etc.
8. We find that the complainant’s affidavit Ex.CW1/A deposes the complaint’s version and the year of manufacture has been indicated as: 2016 on Ex.C1 Policy cover dated 18.01.2016, whereas no Year of manufacture has been indicated on the body of the Delivery Note Ex.C2. However, we further find that the Month and year of manufacture has been indicated as: 01.12.2015 on the vehicle’s Provisional Registration Certificate Ex.C3 dated 03.02.2016, whereas the same again finds no mention over the undated Form 22 (Ex.C4) but its RC foil dated 18.01.2016 Ex.C5 exhibits the Regd. No. as: PB35U/TEMP/2015/1167. Somehow, we are convinced vide the above complainant produced documents that the new vehicle as sold on 18.01.2016 would naturally have been manufactured in the year 2015 and no one may rightly expect to be sold/delivered a vehicle on 18.01.2016 (Model 2016) and with its year of Manufacture as 2016. It has been the trite common sense that a vehicle being sold in the market in the month of January would naturally have been manufactured in the previous year or even earlier. Moreover, the complainant has failed to establish that there ever existed any such arrangement between him and the OP venders for the sale/delivery of the 2016 manufactured vehicle on 18.01.2016.
9. On the other hand, the OP vendors have duly deposed through their Ex.OP1 lone affidavit that the reputed vehicle manufacturers had launched its new Model Mahindra KUV-100 K8 on 16.01.2016 and its delivery had a waiting period of two months but the complainant had himself insisted to be delivered the ‘on display’ vehicle in question and had himself accepted the sold vehicle and as such presently he is estopped to file the instant complaint. Finally, we find that the present complainant has totally failed to establish his case to prove the allegations as made out in his complaint and as such it does not attract a favorable statutory award under the applicable Act.
10. In the light of the all above, we do not find the hue of actionable merit (under the Act) in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs. The complainant is also set at liberty to avail himself of any legal ‘relief’ of his choice and/or advice but pursued in law as per the procedure established in law.
11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
February 27, 2017 Member.
*MK*
