Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/1083/2015

Vivek Kumar s/o Randhir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raj Auto Mobile Through Owner Govind Garg - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Punia

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 1083 /2015

 

Vivek Kumar r/o B 33 Basant Bihar, Jhunjhunu Tehsil & District Jhunjhunu

Vs.

 

Raj Automobile through proprietor F-5 F 10 Varispura Road, RIICO Industrial Area,Jhunjhunu at present Opp.SBBJ, Lohargal Road, Ajmer.

 

 

Date of Order 16.02 .2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. Vijay Punia counsel for the appellant

 

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Jhunjhunu dated 26.8.2015 whereby the claim of the appellant was dismissed.

 

The case of the complainant was that he paid an amount of Rs. 6,76,000/- for the cost of swift car as well as insurance and registration of the same. The contention of the complainant was that cost of the vehicle was only Rs. 6,15,540/- but there is no document to this effect has been submitted before the court below. It has been stated that rest of the amount has been paid for insurance and registration of the vehicle but to support this contention no document has been submitted by the appellant before the court below.

 

The contention of the appellant is that it was the duty of the respondent to get the registration and insurance done but this has also not been proved by the appellant. Admittedly the vehicle was purchased on 23.2.2012 whereas the complaint before the court below has been preferred after one and half year and the court below has rightly held that it is not possible that

3

 

the vehicle was lying unused for such a long period. There is no evidence to the effect that bill was not handed over to the appellant at the time of sale of the vehicle.

 

The court below further considering the merit of the case has rightly rejected the original complaint. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is devoid of any merit and liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm