Per NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

The  complainant purchased one Car Force One BS-IV  vide Engine No. D62000780, chasis number MCLJ-4A-5CP-0011006 for Rs. 12,75,830/-

Page 1. Order CC 67/2013

bearing registration number DL 1CM 9298 from the OP3.  It is alleged by the complainant that the OP 1 had already delivered / sold the said car to one Mr. RavinderChhikara with the same chasis and engine number.  It is further alleged by the complainant that said car was delivered to Mr. RavinderChikara  on 23.4.2012 and the same was returned by sh. Chikara to the Ops on 23.5.2012.  the complainant stated that the OP fraudently, malafidely and by concealment of facts delivered the above said defective car to him on 3.6.2012.

     It is further alleged by the complainant that the car is an old used car as well as defective since the date of purchase.  In the said car following defects are reveale:

3(a) Seats (Driver Seat) has been changed by respondent being defective.

(b) Front two shockers were changed by respondent from the old car to make it new.

© There is a bing sound in the car when the gear are changed.

(d) There is defect in Power Window and the same is not working properly.

(e) the Middle seat of the car is defective.

(f) The said car pull out back smoke and the same is creating polliution.

(g) The AC of the car is not functioning properly.

(h) The blower system in the car are defective.

(i) The AC of the car has been changed by respondent and new AC is not functioning properly.

(j) there is big noise in suspension.

(k) the hand brake are not working in any manner.

(l) thegateof the car are loose.

Page 2. Order CC 67/2013

The complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and has filed the present complaint. 

Notices of the complaint were sent to the OP by registered post on 18-4-2013 & 25-4-2013.  The notice were not received back unserved, and therefore service was presumed to have been effected on the Ops.  Since none had appeared for the Ops, they were ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.

     We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

     The complainant has placed on record the copy of the delivery bill dated 23.4.2012 in the name of one RavinderChhikara , and also the copy of  insurance policy i.e. Ex. CW1/19 in the name of Sh. Chikara which clearly shows  that earlier the above said vehicle was sold to Sh. RavinderChhikara.  The complainant has also placed on record the copy of gate pass dated 3.6.2012 i.e. Ex. CW1/8 in the name of complainant.  The complainant  has placed on record the sale certificate i.e. Ex. CW1/9 which clearly shows that the Ops has sold the old used vehicle to the complainant.  The complainant has placed on record receipts of Rs. 12,75,830/- executed in his favourby the Ops i.e. Ex. CW1/13 , EX CW1/14, Ex. CW1/15.

     Before filing this complaint, the complainant had served a demand notice dated 16/02/2013 on the Ops.  The Ops had failed to comply with or refute the allegation leveled in the notice.  In a number of cases, courts have held that where seriousallegations are made against a noticee in a notice and the allegations are  not refuted and the notice is simply ignored, a presumption may be drawn that the allegations made in the notice are true. (See Kalu Ram VsSita Ram 1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Polis Travels vsSumitKalra&Another 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB).

Page 3. Order CC 67/2013

  The present case is one where a presumption needs to be drawn in faovur of the complainant.  From the unrebutted testimony of the complainant as well as the document placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true.  We

hold OP guilty of deficiency in  service and direct it as under:

1.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs12,75,830/-  being the cost of the laptop along with interest @ 10% p.a.from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 10.4.2013 till payment.

2.Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs10,000/- as  compensation for pain and agony which will also include the cost of litigation.

3. The Op shall take back the vehicle in question after payment from the residence of the complainant.

The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fail to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................