Haryana

Panchkula

CC/329/2020

BHARTI. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM AUTO CARE. - Opp.Party(s)

MANINDER SINGH

12 Jan 2023

ORDER

            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	329 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	27.10.2020
Date of Decision	:	12.01.2023

 

 

Bharti wife of Vibhor Sally resident of House No.122A/B2, Near Shiv Mandir, Dharampur Colony, Pinjore, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Prem Auto Care, Near Railway Crossing, Opposite First Hill Mall, Pinjore, District Panchkula through its authroised signatory.

2.     Prem Auto care, Near Railway Crossing, Opposite First Hill Mall, Pinjore, District Panchkula through its Managing Director Gaurav      Verma.

3.     Gaurav Verma, Prem Auto Care, Near Railway Crossing, Opposite       First Hill Mall, Pinjore. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate for OPs No.1 to 3.

                       

ORDER

(Per Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that a scooter i.e. TVS Jupiter was purchased by the complainant from Ops by paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- in cash and Rs.63,000/- through cheque. It is stated that a old scooter i.e. Bajaj Chetak was given to OPs in exchange for a sum of Rs.2,500/- and in this manner, a sum of Rs. 70,500/- was paid by the complainant to Ops. It is stated that the receipt provided by the Ops qua exchange of scooter showed that the exchange was for a vehicle under BS VI Category. The OPs had got signed proforma papers from the complainant for getting the vehicles registered with the Motor Vehicle(MV) authority, Kalka. The complainant was issued temporary number i.e. HR-49-H-5847 for the TVS Jupiter Scooter on 27.05.2020 with its validity for one month. The complainant was also given the insurance policy for the vehicle for 5 years, wherein the year of manufacture of the vehicle was given as year 2020. The complainant was shocked to see the registration certificate of the TVS Jupiter, wherein it was found that the vehicle was sold to her as a second owner. It is stated that the said scooter was a second hand vehicle under BS IV category, having the model as 2019. It is stated that the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice & have sold the scooter stating it to be new one. The complainant had paid the payment for the new vehicle, whereas she was given the second hand vehicle. A legal notice was served through counsel on 18.09.2020 asking the OPs to make the payment of Rs.70,500/- or provide a brand new TVS Jupiter Scooter, having BS VI engine and model 2020. It is submitted that the grievances of the complainant has not been redressed and thus, due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notices, the OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through learned counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; no  locus-standi, estoppels; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts and has not come with clean hands. It is stated that the OPs No.1 & 2 is a firm engaged in the business of selling two wheeler and OP No.3 is the authorized signatory and proprietor of OPs No.1 & 2. It is submitted that the complainant approached the Ops showing her willingness to purchase a two wheeler i.e. TVS Jupiter scooter and she was clearly conveyed that the stock of non-used BS IV category of the vehicles is available with OPs and if the complainant is willing to purchase the same, the Ops could give her special discount on the said vehicle. The complainant was also informed that due to the registration policy of the Haryana Government, the Ops had got registered all the balance stock of BS IV category vehicles in its firm’s name just to avoid the technical problem of registration of vehicles as the Haryana Government had issued the notification banning the registration of vehicle under BS IV category after 31.03.2020. It is submitted that the complainant was also conveyed about the price of BS VI category of vehicle, which was about Rs.20,000/- higher than the BS IV category vehicle. It is submitted that the complainant after getting satisfied in all manners, had preferred to purchase the vehicle under BS IV category and finalized the deal with OP No.3, wherein a special discount of Rs.6,000/- was given to her. It is submitted that the registration no.HR-49H-5847 allotted to the said vehicle was not a temporary registration number as the said number was a permanent registration number.  It is submitted that the complainant visited the showroom of OPs in the first week of the September 2020 to collect the registration certificate of the vehicle, which was given to here. After few days, the complainant demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the OPs on telephone but the OPs refused  to accede the illegal and invalid demand of the complainant. It is submitted that it was clearly disclosed to the complainant that the OPs had got all BS IV category vehicle registered in its name and the entire vehicle are new one and non used and the complainant after checking the vehicle and her satisfaction purchased the vehicle. On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3.             To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. The evidence of the Ops No.1 to 3 were closed by court order dated 18.10.2022.

4.             We have heard the complainant as well as ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 and gone through the entire record available on the file including synopsis filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the Complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint as well as in the affidavit Annexure C-A and prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint. The submissions made by the complainant qua deficient services and unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs may be summarized as under:-

1. That the OPs had sold the TVS Jupiter Scooter to the Complainant representing the same belonging to BS VI category having 2020 Model.
2. That the vehicle was sold by OP’s to complainant stating that the vehicle  is new one and the Complainant was its first owner. 
6.  
7.  
8.  
9.  
10.  
11.  
12.  

13. Now adverting to relief, it is found that the Complainant has prayed for refund of sum of Rs.70,500/- i.e. the price of the scooter along with interest or replacement with a New TVS Jupiter Scooter having BS VI engine having 2020 Model. Apart from it, a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- have been claimed on account of mental agony and physical harassment and litigation charges respectively. Since, no defect has been alleged qua the functioning of the vehicle, the prayer made for the refund of the purchase price of the vehicle or its replacement is declined. The Complaint is partly allowed and in view of the fact that the scooter in question was sold by the OPs to the Complainant by keeping her in darkness qua actual facts, a compensation of Rs.5,000/- would be fair and adequate. Therefore, the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. Further the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and a compensation of Rs.5,500/- on account of litigation charges.

14.            The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 to 3 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 12.01.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini,          Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                               Satpal

                                         President