ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The complainant is a teacher. As an aspirant purchaser of a new bike the complainant approached the opp.party’s office and enquire about the feasibility of exchanging his old bike. On seeing the Hero Honda Glamour model with black colour with red graphic, he was very fond of to get it and as suggested by the opp.party and book for a Hero Honda with self start and disc brake of the above said colour. The complainant remitted Rs.500/- as towards the booking charge of the vehicle. While booking the vehicle the opp.party agreed for exchanging his old vehicle by giving a reasonable price as such a bike was booked. The opp.party assessed the know how of the complainant and played un unfair trade practice by selling an old bike after made him to believe that it is a new branded one. While delivering the vehicle the model of the vehicle was not see stated in the invoice or in any other records except the insurance certificate in which it was noted as 2008. While delivering the vehicle an owner’s manual was also given to the complainant in which a seal of another agency was found. When the said fact was noticed to the officer bearers they hastily taken back and erased the seal but the complainant hesitated to take the manual and later they agreed to provide a new owners manual, but so far they have not given any manual nor even provide any free service or warranty paper. The complainant with great joy of getting a new branded vehicle taken it in to his house with slight dissatisfaction. But on the day itself the opp.party made a phone call and insisted to produce the vehicle on the next day itself for registration. He was obeyed all such direction and handed over the vehicle to the opp.party for registration with a little doubt why they said fine will we imposed if the registration is delayed. But the unfair practice played by the opp.party was came to know when the complainant made an observation of the vehicle on the date of registration. The complainant found that the vehicle was seen very old all joints were seen rusted, body parts were totally scratched, handle was seen slightly bended, and whiser was damaged. All the defects defects were noted to the opp.party they under the cover of checking, take the vehicle to their workshop and attempted to clean the rusted part and also whiser and handle were refitted with new one but the body scratches are still there. The complainant came to know about the manufacturing year as 2007 only when he obtained the R.C. Book More over he repeatedly demanded for issuances of an owners manual But the opp.party turned a deaf ear towards his demand. When the complainant felt that he was actually cheated by the opp.party he sent a registered legal notice demanding for issuing a new branded one with the agreed requirement. But the opp.party did not turned up. Hence the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence by the opp.party POINTS: Opp. party did not file version in the proper time. Hence the version is not accepted by the Forum. Actually the opp.party neither filed version or adduced any oral or documentary evidence. Opp.party only cross examined the complaint. Here there is no dispute that the complainant purchased bike from the opp.party. According to the opp.party the year of manufacturing of the bike is 2007. That is mentioned in the RC book. But at the delivery time only insurance certificate and invoice were given to the complainant. In the insurance certificate the year of manufacturing is 2008. According to the complainant the RC book was given only after one month of purchase. That means at the time of purchase the complainant could not know that the year of manufacturing is of 2007. In the insurance certificate which was given at the time of purchase the year of manufacture is of 2008. The owner manual was also not given to the complainant. That type of practice is unfair trade practice by supplying an old model vehicle for a price of new branded motor bike of make 2008 and non supply of owner’s manual to the complainant. Hence the complaint is entitled to get relief. In the result the complaint is allowed in part. For unfair trade practice of the opp.party, opp.party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and also directed to pay Rs.1500/- as cost to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant: PW.1. – Giresh List of documents for the complainant. P1. – Invoice P2. – Photocopy of RC Book P3. – Insurance certificate P4. – Copy of Advocate notice P5. – Acknowledgement card. | 
