Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/455

Gurwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sewak Hero - Opp.Party(s)

TPS Gill Adv.

15 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                         Complaint No: 455 dated 07.06.2017.                                                                                    Date of decision: 15.01.2018           

 

Gurinder Singh Ghuman aged 33 years s/o S.Bhupinder Singh r/o VPO Sahauli, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.

                                                                                                ..…Complainant                                                   Versus

Sewak Hero, Insite H.P.Petrol Pump, G.T.Road, Mullanpur, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Managing Director Sh.Tejaspal.                                                                                                                                               …..Opposite party

            Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT                                                                          SH.PARRAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person with Sh.T.P.S.Gill, Advocate                                For OP                        :         Ex-parte    

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                           Complainant on 24.2.2017, purchased one scooty of Pleasure BLK made Hero bearing registration No.PB-10-GD-7102 having engine No.MBLJF16EMGGH09069 and chassis No.JF16EEGGH12035 from OP. Retail cash receipt/voucher bearing No.915 dated 2.3.2017 of amount of Rs.54,000/- in this respect was issued. Even receipt of Rs.2000/- dated 23.2.2017 was also issued. After purchase of that vehicle, OP assured the complainant that he will hand over the brand new model 2017 manufactured vehicle. That vehicle as per that assurance will be having new features. Further, it was disclosed that the said vehicle will be having alloy wheels in addition to other features. However, at the time of delivery of the vehicle on 2.3.2017, Op made excuse as if DTO office has not handed over the documents and those will be handed over only after release of the same by the DTO Office/other authorities. Complainant after receiving the documents was shocked to know as if Op intentionally has not handed over the said documents on the date of delivery because it concealed many facts. It is claimed that old model vehicle of  manufactured in 2016 sold to the complainant, inspite of promised new model of 2017 with excessive features. On raising of objection by the complainant, OP claimed that complainant can get back Rs.2500/- for the committed mistake. OP did all this for clearing the old stock knowingfully well that old vehicle have been banned by the Government. It is claimed that OP charged near about one lac from the complainant, despite sale of old model vehicle. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, prayer made for directing OP to replace the vehicle with new one. In the alternative, direction sought to OP to return back the received amount. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.                OP is ex-parte in this case.

3.                Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CA to Ex.CC along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                 Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for complainant and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                No invoice of the purchased scooty produced by the complainant, but he has produced the receipt of payment of Rs.2000/- in cash on 23.2.2017 and of Rs.54,000/- on 24.2.2017. Those receipts are produced twice on record, one as Ex.C1, then asEx.C11 for the second time again. If the cash amount of Rs.54,000/- was received by the OP from the complainant on 24.2.2017, but receipt issued on 2.3.2017 as disclosed by the contents of Ex.C1=Ex.C11, then the same shows as if the cash amount was received at the time of delivery of vehicle, but the receipt was issued subsequently on 2.3.2017. Delivery receipt Ex.C2 is produced on record to establish as if the delivery of scooty in question was got by the complainant under his signature on 24.2.2017. That fact even is admitted by the complainant in course of arguments. If that be the position, then averments in para no.1 of the complaint and supporting affidavits are not correct that the delivery of the vehicle took place on 2.3.2017. Besides, complainant in para no.3 of complaint as well as in corresponding para no.3 of affidavit Ex.CA as well as in para no.4 of affidavits Ex.CB and Ex.CC claimed as if OP charged near about Rs.1 lac from him at the time of sale of the old modeled vehicle. However, receipts produced to show as if complainant paid only Rs.56,000/-. When confronted with this position in course of arguments, then the complainant admitted as if he has paid Rs.54,000/-. So, virtually contents of complaint and supporting affidavits Ex.CA to Ex.CC each are not correct that amount of Rs.1 lac approximately paid by the complainant to OP. A person who discloses lie regarding the date of receipt of delivery of the vehicle and the amount paid cannot be believed, more so, when he has not produced quotations of price of old model of 2016 and of new model of 2017. Only on production of proof of quotation of old and new models, complainant could have proved that price paid by him actually was paid for purchase of new model of 2017.

6.                Insurance cover Ex.C6=Ex.C9 as well as the registration certificate Ex.C5 and provisional registration certificate Ex.C4=Ex.C10 each were received by the complainant on 25.2.2017. On registration certificate Ex.C8, the date of registration of vehicle in question given as 25.2.2017 by the Transport Authority and as the vehicle cannot be plied without insurance certificate and as such, complainant after receipt of these documents, bound to know that vehicle purchased by him was manufactured in 2017. It is so because in the insurance cover Ex.C6=Ex.C9, the year of manufacture is mentioned as 2016. After receipt of this insurance cover Ex.C6=Ex.C9, immediately at the time of receipt of delivery, the complainant was bound to know that the vehicle delivered to him was manufactured in 2016. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint that complainant got knowledge of year of manufacturer as 2016 on 2.3.2017 absolutely are incorrect. The above pointed concocted versions, falsify the claim of complainant viz-a-viz                   the adduced evidence and as such, the complainant not entitled to any relief on equitable considerations.Affidavits Ex.CB and Ex.CC also contains false averments regarding consideration amount and as such, reliance on those affidavits cannot be placed.

7.                As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed ex-parte by leaving parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                              

(Param Jit Singh Bewli)                  (G.K. Dhir)

                              Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 15.01.2018.

Gurpreet Sharma