Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 423.
Instituted on : 24.07.2017.
Decided on : 19.09.2019.
Dr. Raman age 32 years, s/o Sh. Om Parkash, R/o H.No.113, VPO Manheru, Distt. Bhiwani.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- SPL Motors Pvt. Ltd., Authorised Dealer of HONDA CARS INDIA Ltd., office at Mile Stone 46/1, opposite LPS, Hissar Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
- Honda Cars Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.-201306 through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Parveen Phougat, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh.S.S.Nehra, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a car JAZZ 1.5 VMT(IDTEC), manufactured by opposite party No.2 from its authorized dealer i.e opposite party No.1 on dated 27.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.877000/- and the registration number of the car is HR-16S-4936. That when the registration certificate was received by the complainant, it was found that manufacturing month and year of the vehicle was 1/2016. However, the complainant has purchased vehicle on 27.01.2017. That complainant was shocked to know that one year old vehicle has been fraudulently sold to the complainant. That complainant visited the office of opposite party no.1 with a complaint of selling old vehicle and also sent complaint through mail to the opposite party No.2 but no satisfactory reply was received from the opposite parties. That opposite parties have sold the old car fitted with latest manufactured window panes and tyres manufactured in the year 2017. That the act of opposite parties of selling the old vehicle is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to exchange the car of the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.21000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 filed its written reply submitting therein that in fact the complainant was clearly told by the opposite party No.1 about the manufacturing year of vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that in this respect an undertaking vide dated 13.01.2017 has already been given by the complainant in which it is clearly mentioned that the manufacturing year of the vehicle is 2016 and all the glass are of 2015 and after reading and understanding the same, the complainant signed on it. That nothing has been suppressed by the opposite party No.1 at the time of sale of vehicle. That no fraud has been committed by the opposite party No.1 in any manner. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. That complainant is not entitled for any relief and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1 has sold him an old car. In this regard it is submitted that the same is an issue between the complainant and opposite party No.1 as the opposite party No.2 plays no role in the same. That there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.2. That the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to C3, and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A, documents Ex.OP2/A and failed to conclude its evidence and the evidence of opposite party no.2 was closed by the order dated 30.01.2019 of this Forum. At the time of evidence, opposite party no.1 also failed to appear before this Forum and the opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.03.2019 of this Forum.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the vehicle in the year 2017 from the opposite party no.1 but when the registration certificate was received by the complainant, it was found that manufacturing month and year of the vehicle was 1/2016. Hence the opposite party sold the old vehicle to the complainant. By way of his complaint, he has prayed for exchange of his car with new one. After going through the file, it is observed that by way of its reply, opposite party No.1 has submitted that an undertaking vide dated 13.01.2017 has already been given by the complainant, in which it is clearly mentioned that the manufacturing year of the vehicle is 2016 and all the glass are of 2015 and after reading and understanding the same, the complainant signed on it. But to prove the same, no such document has been placed on record by the opposite party No.1. Moreover, the opposite party No.1 at the time of filing evidence, did not appear and was proceeded against exparte. Complainant also sent an email Ex.C3 to the opposite party regarding selling of old car and causing economic loss to him and the same is also accepted by the opposite party No.2 vide its reply given overleaf, admitting therein that there is difference in date of manufacturing of the car and the final delivery of the vehicle. Hence from the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is proved that the opposite parties have sold an old car to the complainant and has caused financial loss to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. However, there is no defect in the car, so the prayer of complainant of exchange of car is not tenable and he is only entitled for compensation.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party no.2 being the manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant. As such, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.09.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
