DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 201 of 13-05-2011

Decided on : 11-07-2011

Kuldeep Goyal aged about 54 years S/o Sh. Tej Ram, R/o 115-C, Tagore Nagar, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Toyota Kirloskar Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Bidadi, Ramanagara District, PIN 562109 Karanatka.

2. Chadda Super Cars Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director Director/Manager, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, Authorised Dealer Radiant Toyota.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Exparte

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he contacted opposite party No. 2 for purchasing Innova Car manufactured by opposite party No. 1. The complainant specifically told the opposite party No. 2 that he will purchase the vehicle which is manufactured in the year 2011. An amount of Rs. 12,25,269.07 was paid to opposite party No. 2 through Vijay Bank with whom the said vehicle is hypothecated. The opposite party No. 2 issued Invoice No. INV110000001 dated 12-01-2011 wherein year of manufacture was mentioned as 2011 and month of manufacture was also mentioned as January and as such, the complainant took the delivery of vehicle having Chassis No. MBJ11JV4007252589-0111 and Engine No. 2KD6693270 thinking it to be the manufacture of 2011. The complainant presented tax invoice alongwith sale certificate and Form No. 22 issued by opposite party No. 2 for getting the vehicle registered with DTO, Bathinda and the official of DTO office told the complainant that vehicle is manufactured in year 2010 and not in 2011. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and it admitted that the vehicle in question is manufactured in 2010 and even offered to refund amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to complainant, but he refused to receive the same. The complainant alleged that opposite party No. 2 with malafide intention on sale certificate mentioned the year of manufacturing as January, 2011 and if the complainant would have been informed that vehicle is of 2010, he would not have taken the delivery of the vehicle and made the payment of such an huge amount. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

2. Notice of complaint was sent to opposite party No. 1 through registered post and dasti to opposite party No. 2. Neither registered letter nor AD receipt has been received back from opposite party No. 1. None appeared on behalf of both the opposite parties and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them.

3. The complainant led exparte evidence.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.

5. The allegation of the complainant is that he approached opposite party No. 2 for purchasing the Innova Car manufactured in the year 2011 but opposite party No. 2 sold him old model car of the year 2010 and charged Rs. 12,25,269.07 being the value of model 2011. To prove his version, he has placed on file documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8.

6. A perusal of Delivery Note Ex. C-3 issued by opposite party No. 2 reveals that on it Delivery date of vehicle in question bearing Chassis No. 7252589 and Engine No. 6693270 is mentioned as 12-01-2011 and Year of manufacture as 2010. As per Tax Invoice Ex. C-5; Invoice Number is INV110000001, Date/Time 12-01-2011 19:27, Delivery Dealer BA01A, Order No. ORD100000159; Order date 29-09-2010 and the total value of vehicle is Rs. 12,25,269.07. According to Form No. 21 vide Ex. C-6 issued by opposite party No. 2, the year of manufacture is 2011. A perusal of Ex. C-8 i.e Temporary Certificate of Registration reveals that in it also at Sr. No. 7 Month & Year of Manufacture is mentioned as 2011. The complainant has also submitted a certificate vide Ex. C-2 issued by Er. Gurjinder Singh of M/s G S Associates, Engineers, Surveyors, Valuer & Loss Assessors Engineering, Motor and Marine Cargo. He has inspected the vehicle in question on 4-7-2011 and has mentioned in his aforesaid certificate that “Chassis Number and Engine Number physically verified with delivery Note and found in order” The vehicle is hypothecated with Vijay Bank, Bathinda and Milometre reading (KMS) is 2400 Kms. He has opined that approximate market value based on the above & on the basis of his professional experience is about Rs. 11,00,000/- plus/minus 5% .

7. A close scrutiny of aforesaid documents reveals that opposite party No. 2 has sold the vehicle in question to the complainant, the year of manufacturing of which is 2010 alleging it to be of the year of manufacturing as 2011. Hence, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has prayed seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- the loss on account of delivery of old vehicle and refund of Rs. 12,25,269.07 the price of vehicle or in the alternative delivery of new vehicle. The prayer of the complainant regarding refund of the price of vehicle or in the alternative delivery of new vehicle cannot be accepted as the complainant is plying the vehicle since the date of its purchase and even in the certificate issued by the aforesaid valuer, he has also mentioned the mileage of vehicle as 2400 Kms. Thus, this Forum is of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is allowed some amount of compensation in lump-sum as the complainant has not suffered much loss because he purchased the vehicle in the month of January, 2011. The model given to the complainant is of 2010, it is only 12 days old model as no exact date/month of manufacturing of the vehicle is mentioned on any of the documents placed on file.

8. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against opposite party No. 2 with cost and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and dismissed qua opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

   A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced

11-07-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul) Member