Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/152

Kamlesh Chaubey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop. Ranju Autombiles Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kamlesh Chaubey

23 Nov 2022

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-16-12-2016

Date of final hearing-23-11-2022

 Date of Order-23-11-2022

Case No. 152/2016

Kamlesh Chaubey S/o Sri Y.N. Chaubey

R/o Plot No. 2285, Bharat Ekta Co-operative Society,

 P.O. & P.S.- Sector-12, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.

Vs.

1. Proprietor, Ranju Automobiles (P) Ltd.

Bye Pass Road, Chas – 827013, Jharkhand.

2. M.D. & C.E.O., Hyundai Motor India Ltd.

Irrugattukottai, NH No.4, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu - 602117

 

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

        Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

 

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 to replace the Car under question with front power window and in case it is not possible then to direct O.P. No.1 to refund entire amount incurred on the car including registration, Insurance and Road Tax and also to direct to O.Ps. to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
2.  Complainant’s case in short is that on 09.03.2016 he visited the show room of O.P. No. 1 who is dealer of O.P. No.2 for purchase of one diesel  car with AC and front power window. Further case is that sales Manager informed that car available in stock is having features of AC, Power Steering, Power Break, Gear Shift Indicator and Front Power Window, who provided manuscript paper (Annexure-1) on it complainant handed over cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- thereafter, rest amount was financed by SBI. On delivery of the vehicle complainant found that front power window was not in that very car hence it was informed then assurance was given by O.P. to replace the car on availability of the car with power window but it was not done, hence case has been filed on the ground that it is unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps.
3. O.P. No.1 has filed W.S. mentioning therein that there is no cause of action of the case nor there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by this O.P. Further reply is that annexure-1 of the complaint petition is bogus, has not been written on any letter head or booking document and having no signature of any show room sales man. Further reply is that complainant received the vehicle with retail  invoice, delivery challan with full satisfaction after putting his signature. Further reply is that there was no any assurance for replacement of the vehicle which was registered in Govt. office in the name of the complainant. Further reply is that after first service complainant received the vehicle with full satisfaction and never demanded power window but after few months he was claiming for replacement of car. Further reply is that complainant purchased base model car which was having no power window facility and at the time of delivery of the vehicle there was no complain by the complainant.
4.  O.P. No.2 has filed W.S. mentioning therein that as per agreement between O.P. No.1 & 2, O.P. No.2 is not liable to pay any amount for the sale of the vehicle by O.P. No.1 rather his liability is limited to the extent of the performance of the car. Further reply is that as per agreement between both the O.Ps. the dealer shall be on the principal to principal basis hence there is no liability of this O.P. No.2 for any act of O.P. No.1.
5.  Point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed on the basis of unfair trade practice as alleged ?
6. So far annexure-1  is concerned it is photo copy of hand written paper which is bearing no signature of any one. About it complainant has not proved that this paper was written by which of the staff of O.P. No.1. It has also not been proved that said paper is written by authorized person of the O.P. No.1. Annexure-2 and 3 are photo copy of retail invoice and delivery challan dt. 09.03.2016 which show that the car was the base model and at the time of delivery of the vehicle complainant received it in good condition together with records, tools and equipment as per maker’s specification and after full satisfaction he put his signature on it. In this way vehicle was purchased on 09.03.2016 and thereafter, during first service also there was no complain by the complainant as alleged in this case. No any evidence has been brought on record by the complainant to show that base model of the purchased vehicle was having facility of front power window. No any evidence to show that there was assurance by the O.P. No.1 for replacement of said car has been brought on record by the complainant.
7.  In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has not proved his case related to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service by the O.P. No.1  as alleged in the complaint petition.  Accordingly this case is being dismissed. In the facts and circumstance of the case parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                                                                                               

    (B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

 

 

                                                                              (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                                   Member