BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.538 of 2015

Date of Instt. 23.12.2015

Date of Decision: 17.10.2017

Jatinder Kumar S/o Kalu Ram R/o House No.2027 Mohalla Sarai, Nakodar Through Attorney Tarsem lal S/o Amrik Chand R/o Mohalla Sarai, Nakodar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Raga Motors Pvt. Ltd authorized dealer-Mahindra & Mahindra Branch Nakodar through its Manager.

….… Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. JS Mann, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. VK Singla, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that complainant purchased a vehicle i.e. Car, Bolero ZLX color white bearing No.PB08CW5941 from Raga Motors Nakodar for sum of Rs.7,47,412/- on 15.12.2014. The complainant sold his maruti Car 800 bearing No.PB33B-9076 to OP for a sum of Rs.70,000/- only and brought a brand new Bolero ZLX white color from the OP. At the time of deal, the complainant told that he wants to purchase new model of Bolero car but due to the last month of year 2014, the complainant told to that he is not interested in buying the Bolero car in 2014 as only few days were left in 2014 but OP gave assurance that his billing will be issued on January 2015, and RC will also belong to the year 2015 and his Bolero model will be year 2015. The OP also had taken signature of the complainant on many blank papers under the garb of billing formalities.

2. That in January 2015, the OP issued the bill of the complainant's car, which consist the date as 1 January, 2015, but complainant shocked to see the registration certificate, which he applied through the OP, where registration date mentioned as 29.12.2014 and then he inspected the file of registration of his car in DTO Office, here the OP fix the bill dated 15.12.2014. The complainant was wondering that how two bills of the same car can be issued. Due to the willful and wrongful intentional act of the OP, the complainant had suffered a great mental agony, the OP had sold the Bolero car model 2014 making the complainant to believe it was 2015, after knowing the above said facts, the complainant complained the matter to OP but they refused to entertain the request of the complainant and flatly refused to offer any help in the above said matter. That the above said matter is also got highlighted and published in the newspaper. The complainant is a public servant and he is working out of Punjab that is why he unable to appear in person so he had appointed Tarsam Lal S/o Amrik Chand as his attorney and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to compensate the complainant on account of loss to the resale value of the car comes to Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment, inconvenience and unfair trade practice, deficiency in service etc plus cost and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- towards the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP and accordingly the OP appeared through his counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable and even the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and is guilty of suppressing the true and material facts and the present complaint has been filed malafidely. It is further averred that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint even the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts, conduct, admissions, omissions and acquiescence and further alleged that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has purchased the vehicle Bolero from the OP but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and further submitted that the complainant has purchased a vehicle in question after availing finance from the Capital Local Area Bank Ltd to the tune of Rs.5.4 Lacs and deposited the remaining amount as margin money and availed the discount of Rs.35,000/- as benefit of the year end and also availed exchange bonus of Rs.25,000/- which was valid for December, 2014 only. Thus, the complainant purchased a vehicle availing the benefits of year end and took the delivery of the said vehicle on 12.12.2014 against the delivery challan dated 12.12.2014 after fully satisfying himself and there was no question of giving any such assurance as alleged by the complainant, rather there was no such occasion or need thereof and further submitted that the billing of the vehicles sold in online and the OP cannot generate any manual invoice and all the invoices are raised on the online system of the manufacturing company as per the norms of the company and the invoice of the vehicle of the complainant was also raised, vide bill dated 15.12.2014 online under signature of the authorized signatory of the OP and further submitted that it is also matter of common knowledge that the model of the vehicle is attached to the manufacturing year of the vehicle and the same is so mentioned in the RC, also accordingly the model of the vehicle cannot be changed and the model cannot be shown in the RC otherwise than the actual year of manufacturing and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the attorney of the complainant namely Tarsem Lal Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.OPA and Ex.OPB alongwith document Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/3 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is only that he purchased a car Bolero ZLX color white from OP i.e. Raga Motors Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs.7,47,412 on 15.12.2014, but at the time of purchase, the complainant told that he wants to purchase a new model Bolero Car but due to the last month of year 2014, the complainant interested to buy a Bolero Car in the year 2015, but the OP gave an assurance that he may purchase car in the year 2014, but bill will be issued in January 2015 and RC will also be prepared in the year 2015 and his Bolero model will be year 2015, but at the time of preparing RC, the OP attached the bill pertaining to December, 2014 and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, therefore, the complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses.

8. We have considered the case of the complainant and find that the model of the vehicle is not to be adjudged from the date of billing as well as entry in the registration certificate rather the model is to be ascertained from the date of manufacturing and if, vehicle in question is manufactured in the year 2014, then it will be considered the model of year 2014. So, keeping in mind these factors, the version of the complainant is not acceptable or digested because how the vehicle manufactured in the year 2014, if sold in 2015, become the model of 2015. So, it does not mean that the bill is issued in the month of January 2015 or December 2014, rather the model is to be ascertained from the year of manufacturing. So, from this angle, there is no harassment or negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9. Apart from above, the complainant himself stated in para No.1 of the complaint that he purchased a vehicle Bolero on 15.12.2014 and if, he purchased the vehicle on 15.12.2014 and loan was also got sanctioned on 15.12.2014 as endorsement made on the photostat copy of the RC Ex.C3 and further, insurance of the vehicle was also obtained on 12.12.2014 as mentioned in the document registration detail Ex.OP3 and further delivery of the vehicle was taken in the year 2014 and vehicle order taking form Ex.OP/1 was also filled by the complainant in the year 2014. So, when all the documents like insurance and others were prepared in the year 2014, then how it is possible that the bill is to be issued, after the preparation of these documents, rather the bill is to be issued at first instance i.e. before preparing the other documents. So, accordingly, the bills dated 01.01.2015 and 15.12.2014 produced on the file by the complainant and as such, the complainant is well aware where from he procured the bill dated 01.01.2015, whereas the OP has categorically denied that they never issued the bill dated 01.01.2015. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore the complaint of the complainant fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. 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 Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

17.10.2017 Member President