DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : CC/43/2019
Date of Institution : 01.05.2019
Date of Decision : 02.12.2019
M/s Davinder Kumar and Company, Barnala Road, Nihal Singh Wala, Moga through its Proprietor Davinder Kumar. …Complainant
Versus
1. Park Hyundai, Village Kamo Majra Kalan, After IOC Depot, Jind Road, Sangrur, Punjab, through its Manager.
2. Park Hyundai, Bajakhana Road, Barnala, Punjab (148101) through its Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. SK Kotia counsel for the complainant.
Sh. NK Garg counsel for the opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President
2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
3. Ms. Manisha : Member
(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Davinder Kumar and Company has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against Park Hyundai, Village Kamo Majra Kalan and another. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that on 30.12.2018 he purchased a Hyundai i20 Asta car from the opposite party No. 1 vide invoice dated 30.12.2018 which has been delivered at Barnala on the same day.
3. It is further alleged that the salesman of the opposite parties promised that October or November unit will be delivered but July 2018 unit has been forcibly delivered to the complainant which was already 83 Kms driven before its delivery. The documents of the vehicle was also delivered to the complainant 9 days after. When the complainant approached the said salesman he misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant also sent many emails to the opposite parties but to no effect. Even he moved an application to the SSP Barnala but they concluded the same with the suggestion that matter is related to court. Further, on 30.12.2018 cash amount of Rs. 3,860/- was received from the complainant for accessory but no bill was issued for the same and original insurance policy has also not been issued to the complainant. Further, when on 28.2.2019 the complainant went to opposite party No. 2 for service they refused on the excuse that complainant has made complaints against them. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to replace the car of July 2018 unit with November/December 2018.
2) To hand over original insurance policy.
3) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment, costs and counsel fee.
4) Any other relief this Forum deems fit and proper.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written reply taking legal objections on the grounds of not maintainable, no cause of action and locus standi, not a consumer, time barred, bad for non joinder of necessary party and no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint.
5. On merits, it is submitted that Jaspreet Kainth salesman of opposite parties never promised with the complainant that October or November Unit will given. It is denied that complainant was forced to take delivery of one unit that opposite parties wanted to sell. The documents were delivered to the complainant at the earliest and salesman of opposite parties never misbehaved with the complainant. It is admitted that application was filed before SSP Barnala but the same was rejected. It is denied that insurance policy was not delivered to him. Further, complainant never approached the opposite party No. 2 on 28.2.2019 for service so question of refusing the same does not arise. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of provisional Registration certificate Ex.C-3, copy of complaint Ex.C-4, copies of emails Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9, copy of statement of Davinder Kumar Ex.C-10, copy of statement of Jaspreet Singh Ex.C-11, copy of statement of Jagsir Singh Ex.C-12, copy of letter Ex.C-13, copy of RC Ex.C-14, copy of letter dated 23.2.2019 Ex.C-15, copy of letter dated 11.3.2019 Ex.C-16, copy of certificate Ex.C-17, CD Ex.C-18, affidavit of Jagdish Kumar Ex.C-19, affidavit of Jagsir Singh Sandhu Ex.C-20 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence photograph Ex.OP-1, copy of policy Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
9. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant purchased car from them on 30.12.2018 vide bill Ex.C-2. It is proved on the file by the complainant vide copy of provisional registration certificate Ex.C-3 that month and year of manufacturing of car was July 2018.
10. The first grievance of the complainant in the present complaint is that the opposite parties forcibly delivered the car of the month July 2018 to him in the month of December 2018 which was already 83 Kms driven whereas the opposite parties denied this objection of the complainant. To prove his case the complainant relied upon copy of statement of Jagsir Singh Sandhu Ex.C-12 and copy of RC of his car Ex.C-14 from which it is proved on the file that he also purchased the car from the opposite parties in the month of December 2018 and they supplied him car manufactured in the month of September 2018. The opposite parties also filed copy of Tax Invoice of Hyundai Motor India Limited from which it is proved on the file that the same car which was purchased by the complainant was supplied from the company on 29.8.2018 and through document Consumer Schemes December 2018 it is proved on the file that in the month of December 2018 there is special discount of Rs. 20,000/- on the car in question and complainant has purchased the said car by his own will to avail the said benefit. We are also of the view that it is a matter of common knowledge that in the month of December, the car dealers/companies give huge discounts on purchase of cars to sell their old stock and complainant had also purchased the same to take the benefit of discount of Rs. 20,000/- given by the company with his own will and with the knowledge that the same was manufactured in the month of July 2018. However, already running of 83 Kms of the car, the same was also in the knowledge of the complainant at the time of purchase and there is no way of concealing the same by the opposite parties. The complainant also filed CD of the alleged recording of the commitment made by the dealer but he failed to prove that it is the voice of the dealer by taking the sample of the voice of dealer and sending the same to some authorized laboratory, so the CD Ex.C-18 cannot be considered in evidence.
11. The second grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not supplied the insurance policy to him till date. But to rebut this objection the opposite parties filed copy of insurance policy Ex.OP-2 in favour of the complainant which proved that they have already supplied the original insurance policy to the complainant and there is no benefit to the opposite parties by not giving the same to the complainant as it is in favour of the complainant and of the car which was purchased by him. As the complainant purchased the car well within the knowledge that the same was manufactured in July 2018, which in our view does not make much difference in value of the car due to same year and opposite parties already supplied original insurance policy to the complainant, so in our view there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
12. In view of our above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
2nd Day of December 2019
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
(Manisha)
Member
