State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Simran Automobiles vs Sh. Mukesh Kumar on 11 November, 2025
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 187/2024
Date of Presentation: 23.07.2024
Order reserved on: 03.11.2025
Date of Decision: 11.11.2025
.................................................................................
M/s Simran Automobiles, authorized dealer of Royal Enfield
Motorcycle & Spare, Near Toll plaza, Baddi, District Solan,
H.P., through its proprietor.
....... Appellant/Opposite Party.
Versus
Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Roop Chand, R/o House No.527,
New Colony, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.
....Respondent/Complainant
.................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms. Yogita Dutta, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr.Parikshit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.
.................................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar.
F.A.No.187/2024
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
O R D E R:
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by learned District Commission, Solan, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.38/2019 titled as Mukesh Kumar Versus M/s Simran Automobiles, whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund the price amount of vehicle in question i.e. Rs.1,14,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order, failing which said amount shall bear interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order. The complainant was also directed that on receipt of aforesaid amount, he will hand over the vehicle in question alongwith its key to the opposite party against proper receipt. The opposite party was further directed to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
2
M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar. F.A.No.187/2024 Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 28.01.2018, the complainant purchased a new bullet 350 Black, vide invoice No.4532 from the opposite party/dealer for a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- with the assurance that manufacturing year of the said bullet is 2018. When the complainant applied for registration of the bullet with the RLA concerned, he came to know that the opposite party/dealer has sold of 2017 model bullet in the year 2018 and no depreciation was deducted by the opposite party at the time of selling the bullet in question. The complainant immediately contacted the opposite party/dealer and requested to replace the vehicle with new one having manufacturing year 2018, but the opposite party failed to do so. The said act on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.
3
M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar. F.A.No.187/2024
3. The opposite party/dealer filed reply and alleged that at the time of purchase of bullet, in question, on 28.01.2018, it was specifically informed to the complainant that they are having the vehicle of 2017 model only and not 2018. The complainant agreed to purchase the bullet manufactured in the year 2017 but requested the opposite party to give detail of manufacturing year of January, 2018, because he intended to sell the said bullet within 6-8 months as he was planning to go to foreign. Therefore, on the request of complainant, the opposite party issued the sale certificate and insurance policy of vehicle, in question, of 2018 year. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party/dealer. It is further alleged that the opposite party is ready to give new bullet to the complainant at the cost of money which he has paid for the purchase of bullet on 28.01.2018. In alternative also, the opposite party is 4 M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar. F.A.No.187/2024 also ready to give new bullet to the complainant manufactured in the year 2019 after depreciating the value of the bullet purchased by the complainant and assessing the present resale value. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/dealer has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
7. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel of the appellant/dealer has submitted that complainant purchased a bullet 350 from 5 M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar. F.A.No.187/2024 the appellant-dealer in January, 2018, manufactured in 2017. He has further submitted that the complainant was aware about the fact that the vehicle is of 2017 model and since then complainant is using the said bullet without documents. He has further submitted that the complainant had never approached the appellant- company with any grievance. He has further submitted that impugned order is bad in law and prays that appeal of the appellant/dealer be allowed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent/complainant has submitted that appellant- dealer has sold 2017 model of bullet to the complainant in the year 2018 and has concealed this material fact from the complainant. Also, no depreciation amount was deducted by the appellant-company. He has further submitted that impugned order does not require any interference and prays that appeal of the appellant/ dealer be dismissed.
6
M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar. F.A.No.187/2024 FINDINGS
10. The admitted fact emerging on record is that on 28.01.2018, the complainant purchased a new bullet 350 Black from the opposite party/dealer for a sum of Rs.1,14,000/- vide invoice No.4532 (Annexure C-3).
11. Grievance of the complainant is that opposite party has sold old model bullet of 2017 to the complainant in the year 2018 and also not depreciated the value of old vehicle.
12. Selling of bullet of 2017 model in the year 2018 to the complainant is not disputed by the appellant/dealer. The appellant-dealer has only taken a plea that they had informed the complainant that they are having only 2017 model vehicle and complainant was agreed to purchase the bullet of 2017 model and requested the appellant-company to issue the documents of vehicle of 2018 years. But appellant/ dealer failed to prove the said fact by placing on record 7 M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar. F.A.No.187/2024 any documentary evidence, therefore, the said plea taken by the appellant/dealer does not seem to be correct and looses its significance in absence of any documentary evidence.
13. On the other hand, to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record invoice dated 28.01.2018, (Annexure C-3) which on perusal indicates that price of the bullet is Rs.1,14,000/-. Further, perusal of sale certificate, (Annexure C-4) indicates that month and year of manufacturing of bullet is mentioned as January, 2018. Insurance policy, (Annexure C-6) placed on record also reveals the manufacturing year of the vehicle as 2018.
14. Thus, from the aforesaid documents, it is crystal clear on record that the opposite party has sold the bullet having model of the year 2017 in the year 2018. There is nothing on record that complainant was aware that the vehicle sold to him is of 2017 model and 8 M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar. F.A.No.187/2024 not of 2018 model. Therefore, the complainant was entitled for the depreciation of old vehicle.
15. Moreover, the appellant/dealer in its reply has specifically stated that Dealer Company is ready to give new bullet to the complainant at the cost of money, which he paid for the purchase of bullet on 28.01.2018. Meaning thereby, the appellant/dealer has knowingly sold the old vehicle to the complainant which is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/dealer and as such, the complainant is entitled for the claimed amount.
16. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission does not find any infirmity in the order passed by learned District Commission and as such, the same does not require any interference.
9
M/s Simran Automobiles Vs. Sh. Mukesh Kumar. F.A.No.187/2024
17. Consequently, appeal of the appellant/dealer fails and same is hereby dismissed and the impugned order remains upheld.
18. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
19. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of District Commission along with certified copy of order be sent back and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Yogita Dutta Member Veena 10