BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:301 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 07.11.2014.
Date of Decision:20.01.2017
Sh. Ashok Kumar Nehra son of Sh. Azad Singh, resident of Gali No. 4, Dinod Road, Shastri Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Shailesh Chevrolet, through Manager/Officer-in-charge, Near Hunnamal Piyau, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani.
- Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., through General Manager/Managing Director/Officer-in-charge, Block-B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, Halol, District Panchamahals, Gujrat-389351.
- Chevrolet Sales India Pvt. Ltd., through Managing Director/General Manager/Officer-in-charge, 1st Floor, Plot No. 15, Sector-32, Gurgaon-122001.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Shri Jitender Dabas, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
OP no. 2 & 3 exparte.
(Sh. Sandeep Sheoran, Advocate for Ops no. 2 & 3).
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased Spark Car vide invoice no. R00260 dated 18.01.2013. It is alleged that within a period of six month of the purchase of car, its creating many problems with regard to the running of engine, braking system, fluctuating RPM, slow race and may more. It is alleged that he showed the care many times to the OP no. 1 but they were not interested to rectify the problems of car. It is alleged that he went to the agency at Delhi who disclose that this car is 2011 model. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant approached the answering respondent in the month of December 2012 and had taken the delivery of car on 30.12.2012. It is submitted that the complainant never visited in the office of answering respondent. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 & 3 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.12.2014.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure 1 to Annexure 14.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party no. 1 has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to R-5.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the Car Model Spark from the OP no. 1 against a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- in January 2013. After the purchase of the said vehicle from OP no. 1 after about 6 months is started to give problem. The complainant took his car to Delhi dealer who told that this is 2011 model car. The OP no. 1 sold the said 2011 model car to the complainant by saying that it is 2013 model car, in January 2013. In support of his contention the complainant referred the detail bill invoice dated 18.01.2013 Annexure 1, sale certificate Annexure 2, Form 22 as Annexure 3, legal notice Annexure 4, job sheet Annexure 6, bill for Rs. 964/- as Annexure 7, bill of Rs. 730/- as Annexure 9, bill of Rs. 1032/- as Annexure 10 and job sheet dated 30.06.2014 as Annexure 12. He submitted that the sale certificate Annexure 2 the year of manufacturer mentioned as 01/2013. The complainant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case of Shanti Seeds Versus Hira Lal and others 1 (2006) CPJ 128.
8. Learned counsel for the OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the allegations made by the complainant against OP no. 1 are false and baseless. He submitted that the complainant approached the OP no. 1 in the month of December 2012 for the purchase of his Spark Car and he wanted heavy discount on the car. Therefore, the OP no. 1 told the complainant that one Spark Car of Model 2011 is in the stock and the heavy discount can be given on the said car. The value of said car in December 2012 was Rs. 3,43,870/- but the complainant agreed to purchase the said car for Rs. 2,70,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant made the payment of Rs. 2,70,000/- and the OP no. 1 issued the retail invoice dated 31.12.2012 Annexure R-2, vehicle delivery card dated 31.12.2012 Annexure R-3 vide which the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 31.12.2012, insurance cover note dated 28.12.2012 as Annexure R-4. He submitted that the allegations of the complainant purchase for the said car in January 2013 are absolutely false and beyond the record because the complainant has taken the delivery of the said car on 31.12.2012. He further submitted that the OP no. 1 issued the sale certificate on 18.01.2013 on the request of the complainant because the complainant was get to register the said car as of model of 2013 for the registering authority. He further submitted that as per the price list Annexure R-1 Spark model of the car was priced at Rs. 3,43,870/- at showroom, Bhiwani. He further submitted that the complainant has not come with any defects in the car. He came to the complainant for routine services on 06.06.2014 till then the car had run 1,0746/- kms as per Annexure 6. As and when the complainant came to the OP for the services the same were done by the OP no. 1 and there is no fault in the vehicle.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on the record. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- wherein as per the price list Annexure R-1 the price of the said model of the car at showroom Bhiwani is mentioned at Rs. 3,43,870/- . The OP no. 1 has also mentioned this fact in Para No. 6 at page No. 2 of his reply. No rebuttal has come on behalf of the complainant on the giving of heavy discount by the OP no. 1 to the complainant for 2011 model car. From the vehicle delivery card Annexure R-2 the delivery date has been mentioned as 31.12.2012, it means the complainant has taken the delivery of his vehicle on 31.12.2012. The counsel for the OP no. 1 stressed that the OP no. 1 has told that the vehicle in question is of 2013 model are absolutely wrong because the complainant has taken the delivery of the vehicle in December 2012 from OP no. 1 after getting the heavy discount on the card being 2011 model. The complainant has produced the job sheets dated 06.06.2014, 30.06.2014, it means till then the vehicle has run about one year and 6 months. No specific fault has been mentioned in the said job sheet as alleged by the complainant. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his allegations.
10. Admittedly, the sale certificate contains the year of manufacturer as January 2013, which is against the fact. The OP no. 1 should have mentioned the exact year of manufacturer in the form 21, Annexure 2, Form 22 is also signed by OP no. 1 while the counsel for the complainant submitted that it should be signed by the manufacturer of the car as per the provisions of law. Due to the lapses on the part of the OP no. 1 it has given unnecessary rise of litigation. We found that OP no. 1 is at fault by issuing the sale certificate giving the model of the car as Annexure 01/2013. Taking into account every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. The OP no. 1 is directed to pay the said amount of compensation to the complainant through demand draft and the same be sent to the address of the complainant at his address given in the complaint within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 20.01.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member
