BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.334 of 2014

Date of Instt. 23.09.2014

Date of Decision :12.01.2015

Jagjit Kumar, aged about 50 years son of Nand Lal R/o WS-41, Basti Sheikh, Dak Khane Wali Gali, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Smt.Vinita Aseeja D/o Vijay Kumar Aseeja, R/o H.No.132, Bank Colony, Mithapur Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Manmohan Sharma Adv., counsel for OP.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant purchased Activa vehicle No.PB07-R-2256, Chasis No.ME4JF087D58034212 Model 2006 from the opposite party on 14.7.2014 in a sum of Rs.13000/-. The opposite party had given advertisement on net to sell her activa stated above. As per the advertisement the complainant approached the opposite party who sold the same to the complainant. The opposite party assured the complainant that he need not spend any money during the next six months as the vehicle is in good condition and has been properly serviced. She had also claimed the same in net advertisement. After purchasing the said vehicle the conditions stated of the vehicle laid down in the advertisement were not fulfilled. Consequently the complainant has to spend a sum of Rs.2690/-(Rs.2190/-) for the repair of the said vehicle, so much so, it is still not giving proper functioning after its repair. The complainant approached the opposite party and pointed out all this but the opposite party misbehaved with the complainant and refused to compensate him. The complainant asked the opposite party either the vehicle be taken back or get it repaired properly for giving good service but the opposite party refused to do so. On such like averments, complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay Rs.21,000/- as compensation to him.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the opposite party never sold and handed over the said Activa scooter bearing registration No.PB-07-R-2256 to the complainant on 14.7.2014 and the opposite party never received the alleged payment of Rs.13,000/- from the complainant on 14.7.2014. The opposite party sold the said Activa Scooter bearing registration No.PB-07-R-2256 to one Mr.Munish Kumar son of Late.Krishan Lal R/o NN-567, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar on 26.4.2011 and singed blank receipt, Form 29 and Form 30 as per the wish of the said Mr.Munish Kumar and handed over the said Activa with all concerned original papers/documents of said Activa Scooter against the payment of Rs.22,000/- to the said Mr.Munish Kumar through her father Vijay Kumar Aseeja son of Om Parkash Aseeja. As per the registration certificate the year of manufacture is 2005 and not 2006 of the said Activa Scooter. The opposite party had never given any advertisement on net to sell her said activa scooter at any time. The complainant never met the opposite party at any time and the opposite party never sold the said activa scooter to the complainant. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C9 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party.

6. Ex.C-1 is copy of certificate of registration of the Activa scooter purchased by the complainant. It is of 2005 model, although date of registration is 7.6.2006. The complainant has not shown if the opposite party gave any guarantee or warranty to the complainant at the time of purchasing old scooter. In para 6 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that after purchasing the said vehicle the conditions stated of the vehicle laid down in the advertisement were not fulfilled. The complainant has not placed on record copy of any advertisement alleged to have been given by opposite party on net to show that any guarantee regarding the working of the scooter was mentioned in the advertisement or not. The complainant has purchased scooter of 2005 mode in the year 2014 i.e after about 9 years. A nine years old scooter is bound to have some defect with the passage of time. A person purchasing nine years old scooter can not complain that the old scooter purchased by him required certain repairs and he had to spend Rs.2190/- on its repair. The complainant should have checked the old scooter at the time of purchasing the same. Moreover, it is not proved if the opposite party has given any warranty regarding its working to the complainant at the time of purchase.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.01.2015 Member President