Haryana

StateCommission

RP/118/2018

HYUNDAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK SHEORAN

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   118 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution :      02.08.2018

                                                Date of Decision   :      06.08.2018

 

 

Hisar Hyundai, 11 KM Stone, Delhi Bye-Pass Road, Hisar through its Authorized Person Manav Sharma, Service Manager, Hisar Hyundai.

Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Rakesh Kumar son of Sh. Om Prakash, resident of House No.511, Village and Post Office Satrod Khurd, Hisar.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Pradeep Singh, posted as General Manager Sales, Hisar Hyundai, 11^th KM Stone, Delhi Bye-pass Road, Hisar.

Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

CORAM :   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

                  

Present :             Sh. Vivek Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                     

O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          Rakesh Kumar-complainant purchased Hyundai i10 petrol car from the petitioner on October 11^th, 2017.  Lateron he learnt that the car was manufactured in the month of January, 2017 and not in the month of September, 2017.  By filing the complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short, ‘District Forum’), the complainant sought compensation.

2.      During the pendency of the complaint, he filed an application to summon the officials/concerned persons of the petitioner and M/s Orion Hyundai to prove that the petitioner had sold number of cars to other customers in which the month of manufacturing of the car was later than January, 2017.  He wants to prove that the petitioner has adopted unfair trade practice in delivering the car to him, which was manufactured in the month of January, 2017. 

3.      The District Forum vide order dated July 11^th, 2018 allowed the application.

4.      Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

5.      Since the issue involved in this case is that the petitioner sold the car to the complainant of January, 2017 make in the month of October, 2017 whereas there were many other cars of which the manufacturing month was later than January, 2017, so, the same can only be proved by summoning the record of the petitioner.  Thus, the revision petition is dismissed.

6.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 06.08.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 UK