Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/760/2021

Anish Chander Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, Directorate of Supplies & Disposals Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder S. Dadwal

24 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/760/2021
Date of Institution	:	19/10/2021
Date of Decision	:	24/05/2023

 

Anish Chander Sharma S/o Late Sh.Ram Lal Sharma, R/o H.No.308, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh, presently residing in Canada through General Power of Attorney of Sh.Rakesh Chander Sharma, S/o Late Sh.Ram Lal Sharma, R/o H.No.308, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. The Director, Directorate of Supplies & Disposals, Haryana, SCO No.9, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Sector -16, Panchkula-134109 (Haryana).
2. The Senior Mechanical Engineer, Ministry Car Section Haryana, Plot No.20-21, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Narinder Singh Dadwal, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Gaurav Girdhar, Authorized Representative of OP No.1.
	:	None for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that as per instructions of OP, the complainant took part in the auction proceedings on 24.03.2021 at 12.00 Noon and he succeeded in purchasing the Santafe vehicle Model 2012 bearing No.HR-06V-0001 for a consideration of Rs.4,65,000/- being higher bidder and accordingly, the complainant was issued acceptance letter dated 16.04.2021 by the OP and the complainant deposited Rs.4,65,000/- by way of demand draft. The complainant also deposited 18% GST by way of demand draft with OP No.2 as per their instructions and uplifted the vehicle in question from the office of OP No.2 (Annexure C-3). On receipt of RC of the vehicle in question, the complainant was shocked and surprised to see that the manufacturing date of the vehicle was 12/2012, whereas its registration date was 08.03.2013 (Annexure C-4). Thereafter, the complainant immediately approached the OP and submitted complaint dated 20.05.2021 alongwith RC of the vehicle, but the OP refused to entertain his representation dated 20.05.2021 vide letter memo dated 01.06.2021 on the ground that the complainant has deposited the GST and full payment in the government account and also uplifted the vehicle from concerned department (Annexure C-5). The complainant served the legal notice dated 02.09.2021 to the OP (Annexure C-6). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the registration certificate of which is valid from 08.03.2013 to 06.02.2028. In RC, the manufacturing month of vehicle is shown as 12/2012 but the same was registered on 08.03.2013, because of this model No.2013 is mentioned in e-Auction. It is further submitted that, the extension of this vehicle will be required from 06.02.2028 and not from 2027, therefore, there will be no difference in the value of vehicle due to date of manufacturing rather it is effected from the date of registration or condition of the vehicle. It is also submitted that the Condemnation Board reserves the price of the vehicle or on mechanical physical condition, manufacturing month/year and validity of RC. If the manufacturing year is down but other parameters of vehicle are good then the reserve price of vehicle is higher or vice-versa is also possible. The vehicle has been sold by the OP No.2 as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the online e-auction notice. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OPs.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have mentioned the year of the model as 2013, where on after e-auction & purchase of the same, it came to his knowledge that the vehicle was manufactured in December, 2012. Hence, the complainant has alleged that he is suffering from mental agony & financial loss due to above cheating & fraud committed by the OP.
7.     On perusal of Annexure C-2 (page No.16) which is an online auction notice, it is observed that against SL No.10, the model is mentioned as 2013, whereas on perusal of Annexure C-4 which is an auction notice, it is observed that manufacturing year is mentioned as December 2012 and the vehicle was registered on 08.03.2013. From above we can safely draw a conclusion that the OPs have sold one month old vehicle by depicting December, 2012 model as being of 2013 model to the complainant and the same has caused mental agony & harassment.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹2000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
24/05/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member