DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 281 of 20.11.2020

                                      Decided on:   3.1.2023

Roshan Lal s/o Inder Pal R/o Arno, Teh. Patran, District Patiala(Pb)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Shree Bala Jee Automobiles, Near Mini Sectriate, GT Road, Fatehabad, Haryana-125050.
2. Hero Motocorp. Ltd.34 Community Centre, Basant Loc, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. Hero MotoCorp  Ltd,37^th K.M.Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Sec-33, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Vivek Garg, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

                                      Sh.Vikas Mittal, counsel for Opposite parties No.2&3.

 ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Roshan Lal s/o Inder Pal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Shree Bala Jee Automobiles and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. It is averred that complainant Roshan Lal purchased a motor cycle make Hero, bearing chassis No.MBLKCS308HGK01154, engine No.KC10EJHGK01393, colour PBK from OP No.1 on 24.2.2020 for an amount of Rs.63550/- as per tax invoice No.10024BB20S3197 dated 24.2.2020 and extra charges for Temporary certificate & Insurance etc..It is further averred that when complainant approached RTA, Patiala for permanent registration of the aforesaid vehicle, the authority objected to register the same as the motor cycle was manufactured in 2017 and in its insurance policy manufacturing year was mentioned 2018. The complainant met the dealer/agency and pointed out the above facts to them but they refused to entertain him. Complainant got issued legal notice upon the OPs through registered post on 12.10.2020 which was duly served upon them but of no avail. Conseqsuently, prayer has thus been made for the acceptance of the complaint.
3. Upon notice OP No.1appeared through its salesman and filed written statement whereas  OPs No.2&3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.1.2021.Thereafter OPs No.2&3 appeared through counsel and filed application for setting aside exparte proceedings which was allowed.It is also pertinent to mention here that after filing written statement none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.8.2020.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1 it has taken various preliminary objections. In parawise reply, it is admitted that the motor cycle was purchased from it in the name of Roshan Lal. It is also admitted that manufacturing year of the motor cycle was 10/2017.The receipt of legal notice has also been admitted by the OP but after denying all other averments, OP No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In the written reply filed by OPs No.2&3 it is submitted that OP No.1 is the audhorized dealer of the products manufactured by OPs No.2&3 and sell its products through its authorized dealers.It is further averred that they have no role to play between the transaction of authorized dealer (OP No.1) and the customer. It is further averred that complainant has not raised any issue against OPs No.2&3.There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.2&3. It is submitted that in the instant complaint National Insurance Co. Ltd. is the insurance provider.OPs No.2&3 after denying all other averments made in the complaint have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In support of the complaint, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1, copy of tax invoice dated 24.2.2020, Ex.C2 sale certificate, Ex.C3 form No.22, Ex.C4 temporary certificate of registration, Ex.C5 copy of insurance policy,Ex.C6 copy of adhaar card,Ex.C7 copy of voter card, Ex.C8 copy of legal notice,Exs.C9 &C10 copies of postal receipts and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Siddharth Tewari, authorized representative of Hero Motor Corp.Ltd. alongwith documents,Ex.OP1 copy of warranty policy and has closed the evidence.
8. We have heard Ld counsel of both the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The only claim sought for by the complainant is to the extent that the OPs may please be directed to replace the motor cycle  with that of year 2020or to refund  all the expenses i.e. cost of vehicle( Rs.63,550/-), temporary number issuing fee of Rs.150/- and insurance Rs.5470/- totaling Rs.69,170/-with interest on bank rate  or to direct the dealer/agency to get the vehicle registered in the name of the complainant from the Motor Vehicle Authority, Patiala and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses.
10. Ex.C2 is the sale certificate dated 24.2.2020 in which the manufacturing year of motor cycle is mentioned as 10-2017 whereas in the insurance certificate,Ex.C5, year of manufacturing is mentioned as 2018, as a result of which the Registering Transport Authority  refused to issue RC of the vehicle. When the complainant approached OP No.1, the revised insurance policy cover was given in which the year of manufacturing was mentioned as 2017.
11. From the invoice for the sale of motor cycle, it is clear that the motor cycle was sold on 24.2.2020 whereas the model of the motor cycle was that of 10/2017 which clearly amounts to unfair trade practice as the vehicle manufactured in 2017 was sold to the complainant after a gap of almost three years. The vehicle was registered by OP No.1with the temporary registration number which was valid for a period of one month from the date of sale i.e. 24.2.2020 to 23.3.2020.The vehicle complied with Emission Norms of Bharat Stage-IV. The Govt. of India vide notification had discontinued the registration of the vehicle with Emission Norms compliant with Bharat Stage-IV w.e.f.31.3.2020  which was widely published in Media right from the year 2019 onwards. As such OP No.1 was fully aware about discontinuation of the vehicles compliant with Bharat Stage –IV Emission Norms  to be effective from 31.3.2020 and has wrongly sold the vehicle manufactured in the year 10/2017 to the complainant on 24.2.2020 and has thus committed unfair trade practice.
12. In view of foregoing reasons, we allow the complaint and pass the following order against OP No.1:

1. To get released the RC of the aforesaid vehicle within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the said order,               OR

To refund the amount of Rs.69170/-alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 24.2.2020 till realization, subject to the complainant handing over the motor cycle to OP No.1 in as found condition. ORTo replace the motor cycle with a new one of similar /equivalent configuration of latest model,subject to the complainant handing over the motor cycle to OP No.1 in as found condition.

The OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant within the prescribed period.    

13.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  

DATED:3.1.2023         

                                                  G.S.Nagi                         S.K.AGGARWAL

                                                  Member                                  President