DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No.195 of 10-06-2022

Decided on : 01-07-2022

Ravinder Singh, aged about 64 years S/o Tarlochan Singh R/o V.P.O. Gobindpura, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Raja Hyundai Raja Motors, Mansa Road, Bathinda.

2. Hyundai Motor India Limited, Address: Plot C-11, City Center, Sector 29, Gurugram, Haryana, 122001.

   .......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President.

Sh.Shivdev Singh, Member.

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present

For the complainant : Sh.Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainant Ravinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before this Commission against Raja Hyundai Raja Motors and other, (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 to buy new car and gave his car bearing No.PB-10AH3377 to opposite party No.1 for exchange, it fixed the price of this car to the tune of Rs.33,000/- and gave him exchange offer of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant visited 2-3 times to Raja Hyundai for sale and transfer of ownership papers of his vehicle. Opposite party No.1 gave him one purchase affidavit on 20.11.2015 and according to which, the vehicle was sold to Mewa Singh and opposite party No.1 told him that only affidavit is sufficient and there is no need for anything else. Thereafter to the utter surprise of the complainant, on 25.5.2019, ASI Ajib Singh came to complainant and told that an accident has occurred with his Sentro car in which one person has died, then the complainant told him that he had exchanged his car two years ago with Raja Hyundai (opposite party No.1). The complainant received a summon from Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Bathinda on 5.3.2019 and according to which, a Motor Accident Claim case was filed in which he was also made a party. Opposie party No.1 deceived the complainant as it did not provide any evidence regarding the transfer of vehicle and mislead him. The complainant repeatedly requested opposite parties to provide all damages caused to him physcologically, mentally and monitarily regarding the exchange of the car, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

3. Preliminary hearing is given to the learned counsel for complainant and record placed on file by the complainant perused

4. From the pleadings of the complainant, it is revealed that the complainant visited opposite party No.1 in the year 2015 to purchase one new car in exchange of his old car as offered by opposite party No.1, but the complainant has neither produced any document regarding purchase of new car or handing over old car to opposite party No.1, rather he has placed on file one affidavit of Mewa Singh to show sale of car to said Mewa Singh. Moreover the complainant has also mentioned in his complaint that Motor Accident Claim case is also pending before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Bathinda in which he was also made a party.

5. From the perusal of the complaint and documents annexed with the complaint, it is not established that the complainant is the 'consumer' of opposite parties qua his grievances mentioned in this complaint.

6. Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Thus, this complaint is hereby dismissed in limine. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court/Authority for redressal of his grievances if so permitted by law.

7. Copy of order be sent to the complainant free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

   Announced:-

   01-07-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

   President

    

    

   (Shivdev Singh)

   Member

    

    

   (Paramjeet Kaur)

   Member