PRESENT:      Complainant in person.

Sh.Vaneesh Khanna, Adv. for OP.

                              ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Sh.Praveen  Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed  to :-

i)              To replace the motorcycle with a 2009 Model.

ii)         To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

iii)    To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation costs.

2.        In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a motorcycle make Pulsar 150 DTSi for a sum of Rs.60340/- vide invoice dated 12.01.2009 (Annexure C-1) from OP-1. He was allotted temporary registration certificate by OP-1. According to the complainant, when he got insured the vehicle, it came to light that the year of manufacturing of vehicle in question is Sept.2008 instead of 2009. He immediately brought this fact to the knowledge of OPs who assured him that the model will be mentioned as 2009 on the registration certificate of the vehicle. When the model 2009 did not find mention on the RC, the complainant immediately approached OPs and requested them to replace the motorcycle with new model of 2009 or refund its price. It has further been averred that the model of the vehicle was not even mentioned on the invoice. According to the complainant, he made repeated requests for replacement/refund of the price but to no effect which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.        In the reply filed by the OPs, it has been pleaded that it was duly explained by the staff of OPs that the vehicle in question was a brand new vehicle and its month of manufacturing was Sept.2008 and the same was duly mentioned on the sale certificate which was even signed by the complainant himself. According to OPs, in the application form of registration of the vehicle also, the complainant  had mentioned the month and year of the manufacturing as Sept. 2008 in Column No.17 of the application form which was duly signed by him and therefore, the Registration Authority has rightly mentioned the model as 2008. It has been further pleaded that this fact was also within the knowledge of the complainant at the time of getting the insurance of the vehicle in question. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.        We have heard the complainant in person and the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

5.        Annexure R-1 is the sales certificate. From the perusal of the same, it is apparent that it has been clearly mentioned that the month and year of manufacture of the vehicle in question is September, 2008. Admittedly, the motorcycle was new and was not used one. In these circumstances, there is no misrepresentation of fact regarding the month and year/model of the vehicle in question. As per the complainant himself, he has come to know about the date of manufacturing at the time when he saw the cover note of the insurance policy on the same day. Mere fact that any of the employees of OP had told the complainant that in the RC, the model will be mentioned as 2009 has not given any cause of action to the complainant for replacement of the vehicle in question with a new one of 2009 model. The complainant himself is an educated person and he is expected to know the law as also having read all relevant documents of the said motorcycle. Otherwise also, it is well known maxim that ignorance of law is no excuse. In all the relevant documents wherever there is column of month and manufacturing of the vehicle, it has been mentioned that the motorcycle in question was manufactured in the year 2008. In these circumstances, there is no concealment of fact nor is there any misrepresentation regarding the month and manufacturing year of the vehicle in question on the part of OPs.

6.        Thus, the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

7.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced                                        

14.01.2010