Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/530/2013

Satpal S/o Krishan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rohit Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

V.P.S.Sidhu

10 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 530 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of Institution: 25.07.2013

                                                                                    Date of Decision:10.03.2017.

Satpal aged about 77 years son of Sh. Krishan lal, resident of village & Post Office Kalawar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                 ..Complainant

                    Versus

1. Rohit Automobiles, Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar ( Authorized Dealer of Hero Motor Corporationb ltd. .
2. Hero Motor Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director, Community Centre, Basant Lok Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057, India.

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                 ..Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER  

 

Present: Sh. V.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. Harvinder Aneja, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER   

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended up-to-date.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased a motorcycle mark Hero Splendor from Op No.1 who is authorized dealer of Op No.2 on 27.02.2013 vide bill dated 27.02.2013 for a sum of Rs. 40,128/- and the same was got registered with the Registration Authority, Jagadhri on dated 11.04.2013 with the registration No. HR-02AB-9186. The complainant purchased motorcycle in question with the hope of model of year 2013 but when the complainant saw the registration certificate mentioning the month, year of manufacturing shown as 12/2012. which shocked the complainant as model was of 2012 despite of fact that complainant purchased it in the year 2013. Upon which, complainant approached the Op No.1 and requested to replace the said motorcycle with the latest model of 2013 but the OP No.1 flatly refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant, hence, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to change deliver the new motorcycle of February 2013 model instead of 2012 and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum; complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum; complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and on merit it has been stated that sale certificate from CSD was received by the Op No.1 and thereafter vehicle was handed over to the complainant. Further, it has been stated that at the time of sale of the motorcycle in question, date of manufacturing was disclosed by the OPs to the complainant and thereafter complainant agreed with the OPs and purchased the motorcycle in question on 27.02.2013 after fulfilling all the formalities and after satisfaction of the complainant he put his signature on the bill as well as after receiving the vehicle. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

4.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of CSD bill issued by CSD Ambala Cantt as Annexure C-1 and C-5, Photo copy of sale certificate form No.21 as Annexure C-2 and C-6, Photo copy of temporary registration certificate as Annexure C-3 and C-8, Photo copy of registration certificate as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of purchase bill as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of form No.22 as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5                      On the other hand, OPs failed to adduce any evidence, hence its evidence was closed by court order on dated 07.03.2017.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased motorcycle in question from the Op No.1 manufactured by Op No.2 on 27.02.2013 for a sum of Rs. 40128/- which is duly evident from the copy of temporary registration number Annexure C-3 and photo copy of registration certificate of the motorcycle in question Annexure C-4 and copy of bill annexure C-1.

8.                     The only main question involved in the present case is that whether the motorcycle in question was sold by OP No.1 having manufacturing year December, 2012 or 2013 and on this account complainant has suffered any financial loss or not? Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that OP No.1 sold motorcycle in question make December, 2012 to the complainant which is duly evident from the copy of registration Certificate Annexure C-4 and sale certificate form No.21 Annexure C-2 wherein manufacturing month and year has been shown as December, 2012 whereas the complainant purchased the motorcycle in question on 27.02.2013. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that when the complainant purchased the motorcycle in question on 27.02.2013 then the OP No.1 dealer was duty bound to deliver the new vehicle make February, 2013 instead of make December, 2012 and due to this complainant has suffered financial loss and also draw our attention towards the case law titled as Dynamic Motors Versus Kulwant Bhardwaj & Others, 2013(4) CLT Page 601. Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and daw our attentions towards the sale certificate/ form No.21 (Annexure C-2) wherein it has been mentioned that vehicle in question was manufactured in the month of and year December, 2012 and the same was sold to the complainant on 27.02.2013. So, it cannot be said that the OP No.1 has sold the vehicle in question after one year. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that neither the complainant has sold the vehicle in question to any third party nor the manufacturing company as well as dealer has reduced the price of the vehicle in question in the year 2013 instead of 2012. So, the version of the complainant is totally concocted one. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that complainant has also not placed on file any document from which he has proved any financial loss due to purchase of motorcycle. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint and referred the case law titled as M/s Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Aneetha Beegum reported in 2015 (4) CLT, P.419 by the State Commission, Kerala.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The only grievances of the complainant is that when the complainant received the registration book, it was revealed that vehicle was manufactured during December, 2012 i.e. of previous year. So, case is filed on the assumption that there is change in model on 31/12 of every year. The said model is never manufactured with reference to the calendar year. It is in the above background, the OP has contended that any vehicle manufactured would take some days to reach dealer and even after the vehicle is delivered at show room it would take further some days for check up and actual delivery of the vehicle. So, during the month of January/February of any year only vehicle manufactured during December of the previous year could be delivered to the customer. It is pertinent to notice that a vehicle is never registered with reference to the year of manufacture. It is true that from the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle, the month of manufacture could be deciphered and month and year of the manufacture would be shown in the RC book but it does not ipso facto means that the complainant has purchased a vehicle manufactured in a particular month or year.  Purchase invoice is with reference to the model of the vehicle nor with the month and year. Generally it is assumed that when the vehicles manufactured in a particular year remains unsold, they are sold in the following year at a very heavy discount.  But no such practice is proved to be prevalent in the sale of motorcycle, it may rarely happen when the manufacturer stops production of a particular model that the vehicles remaining unsold may be sold at a discount/premium but a particular model is never produced with reference to calendar year.  There is also no basis of assumption that Ops no.1 & 2 charged the price prevailing in the year 2012.  Prices of the vehicle are charged with previous open announcement and not necessarily at the end of the calendar year.  This view has been held in case titled as M/s Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Aneetha Beegum (supra).

11.                   The facts of the present case are not different from the facts mentioned in the above noted citation titled as M/s Deedi Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Aneetha Beegum (supra). The law cited by the counsel for the complainant titled as Dynamic Motors Versus Kulwant Bhardwaj & Others,(supra) is not disputed but not helpful in the present case as in this citation car was the year of model of 2009 whereas it was sold in 2011 i.e. after 2 years from the date of manufacturing but in the present case the motorcycle in question was sold to the complainant in the month of February, 2013 which was manufactured in the month of December, 2012.

12                    Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 10.03.2017.

 

                                                                                    ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                       

                                                                                    (  S.C. SHARMA)

                                                                                      MEMBER