State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunil Bhardwaj vs M/S Krishna Motor Garage on 6 January, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/A/270/2024
SUNIL BHARDWAJ
PRESENT ADDRESS - SON OF SH. RAM CHAND, PARTNER UNITED GLOBAL PACKAGING
LLP, CABIN NO.2, SHOP NO. 52, 1ST FLOOR, OLD ROPAR ROAD, MANIMAJRA,
CHANDIGARH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 287, SECTOR 22-A,
CHANDIGARH.,CHANDIGARH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S KRISHNA MOTOR GARAGE
PRESENT ADDRESS - PLOT NO. 178-178A, INDL. & BUSINESS PARK, ELANTE MALL,
PHASE-I, CHANDIGARH, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.,CHANDIGARH.
M/S MG MOTOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
PRESENT ADDRESS - 10TH FLOOR, 32ND AVENUE, SAINI K HERA VILLAGE, SECTOR 15,
GURU GRAM, ,CHANDIGARH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
J.R. SYAL (Advocate)
DATED: 06/01/2026
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench) Appeal No. : 270 of 2024 Date of Institution : 26.07.2024 Date of Decision : 06.01.2026 Sunil Bhardwaj son of Sh. Ram Chand, Partner United Global Packaging LLP, Cabin No.2, Shop No. 52, 1st Floor, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh, Resident of House No. 287, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh.
--Appellant Versus 1] M/S Krishna Motor Garage, Plot No. 178-178A, Indl. & Business Park, Elante Mall, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Managing Director.
2] M/S MG Motor India Private Limited, 10th Floor, 32nd Avenue, Saini Khera Village, Sector 15, Gurugram,Haryana122022, through its Managing Director.
...Respondents Appeal against the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.506/2020.
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA, MEMBER
For the appellant : Sh. J.R.Syal, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Advocate
For respondent No.2. : Sh.Gursher Singh Bhandal, Advocate
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.2024, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as "the Ld. District Commission"), whereby consumer complaint (CC/506/2020) filed by the complainant/appellant was dismissed.
2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant that he booked HECTOR Diesel 2.0 M.T Sharp BSIV Car for his personal/official use with Opposite Party No.1-M/S Krishna Motor Garage on 21.07.2019 by depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards booking amount vide receipt No.61 dated 21.07.2019, a copy of which is Annexure C-
1. It is stated that at the time of booking, the complainant categorically desired the vehicle to be provided within four months. However, since the delivery of the booked vehicle was not given even upto Nov./Dec., 2019, so he asked Opposite Party No.1 to deliver him a vehicle manufactured in the year 2020, which was agreed upon by Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant was given the delivery of the aforesaid vehicle on 15.01.2020 vide tax invoice dated 15.1.2020, a copy of which is Annexure C-2 and the month & year of manufacture of the vehicle was shown to be as 01/2020 in the Sale Certificate in Form 21 provided by Opposite Party No.1, a copy of which is Annexure C-3. When the complainant started the vehicle on the very next day, he was astonished to find display showing the year of manufacture of the vehicle to be of the year 2019, a copy of the screenshot taken by the complainant is Annexure C-4. It was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties that the delivered car was having model of 2019 instead of 2020 despite assurance. It was further stated that by providing a vehicle manufactured in the year 2019, instead of 2020, the Opposite parties downgraded the year of manufacturer of the vehicle, thereby reducing the sale price. When nothing positive came out, having left with no other alternative, the complainant got served a legal notice Annexure C-5 upon the Opposite Parties calling upon them to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle manufactured in the year 2020 alongwith compensation but nothing was heard. When all efforts made by the complainant to seek redressal of his grievance could not get any tangible result, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Learned District Commission seeking replacement of the vehicle manufactured in 2019 with brand new vehicle manufactured in the year 2020 or refund the price of the vehicle in question as well as to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite parties appeared before the Learned District Commission and contested the complaint. In its written version, Opposite Party No.1 stated that Vehicle identification number (VIN) is allotted to every vehicle manufactured separately and every VIN is embossed on the chassis of the vehicle which helps in the identity of the vehicle for the next 30 years. It was further stated that from the VIN allotted to the complainant's vehicle, it was manufactured in January, 2020, as MZ7 is mentioned against World Manufacturer Identifier (WMI), ADIDDA is mentioned against Vehicle Descriptor Section (VDS) and 3H017514 is mentioned against Vehicle Indicator Section (VIS). It was further stated that the registration authority verifies all these indicators before mentioning the same in the registration certificate and it is verifiable from the RC of the vehicle which shows the year of manufacturing as 2020. It was further stated that there are other ways and means for verifying about the year of manufacturing of any vehicle as no manufacturer is in a position to mention wrong facts about the vehicle and its year of manufacturing as inventory is to be submitted to the respective authorities established for keeping the record of the vehicles manufactured in the country by various manufacturers. The screenshot taken by the complainant is that of head unit and it does not relate to the year of manufacturing of the vehicle. Denying other allegations and pleading that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite Party No.2 in its written version while admitting the sale of the vehicle stated that the Model Year as displayed on the Head Unit of the MG Hector Cars refers to the manufacturing year of the Head Unit and not the particular Car. It was further stated that the year of manufacture of any vehicle can be identified from its VIN which is punched or embossed on the chassis or frame of the vehicle which is a unique combination of characters as well as mentioned on the Sale Certificate and the Registration Certificate. It was denied that the Opposite Party had delivered the complainant a Car which was manufactured in the year 2019 instead of the year 2020 or it had downgraded the year of manufacture of the vehicle. It was pleaded that the car in question delivered to the complainant was manufactured at the Plant of Opposite Party in January 2020 itself. Other allegations were denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
5.. On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. District Commission came to the conclusion that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties proved on record and accordingly dismissed the Complaint of the Complainant/ appellant, as noted in the opening para of this order.
6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/complainant.
7. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
8. It is case of the appellant that the Learned District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to consider the documentary evidence in the shape of Annexures C-1 to C-6 to prove his case of alleged supply of old model of the car, which had neither been appreciated nor taken into consideration which resulted in perverse finding. Further the case of the appellant is that he had referred to a judgment of Hon'ble NCDRC, New Delhi dated 24.4.2023 in CC/55/2018, titled as Parveen Kumar Mittal Vs Porsche India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors but the same was not considered by the Learned District Commission. On the other hand, it was contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that the order passed by the Learned District Commission is quite just and reasonable and does not call for any interference.
9. The only dispute in this case is with regard to the manufacturing year of the vehicle purchased by the appellant. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant alongwith the consumer complaint was Annexure C-1- receipt of booking amount, C-2 is copy of the tax invoice dated 16.01.2020 wherein VIN, Engine number, colour and Key no. of the vehicle have been mentioned. Annexure C-3 is copy of the sale certificate issued by respondent No.1 wherein month & year of manufacture is mentioned as 01/2020. Annexure C-4 is printout of the screenshot of the head taken by the appellant wherein model year as 2019 has been mentioned. Annexure C-5 is copy of the Legal notice sent by the appellant to the respondents. Annexure C-6 is copy of the postal receipt. The appellant has not produced the Registration certificate of the vehicle in this appeal nor produced before the learned District Commission. Annexure C-3 is copy of the Sale Certificate wherein VIN- MZ7ADIDDA3H017514 is mentioned. Respondent No.2 is manufacturer of the Vehicle. In its written version, it has clarified the legal proposition regarding Vehicle Identification Number for any vehicle according to which VIN is a unique number for each vehicle allotted in conformity with the universally accepted standards. Every manufacturer has to mandatorily comply with the Automotive Industry Standards as stated in AIS 065:2005 with respect to allotment of VIN for every vehicle manufactured at its plants. VIN is punched or embossed on the chassis or frame of the vehicle which is unique combination of characters consisting of seventeen characters divided into three different sections i.e. (a) World Manufacturer's Identifier (WMI); (b) Vehicle Descriptor Section (VDS) and (c) Vehicle Indicator Section (VIS). First three digits MZ7 denotes WMI for MG Motor India's Vehicles for India, ADIDDA denotes- A for Model Code for Hector 5 seater, D for Type Code for Hatchback vehicles, I for Transmission Code for Manual Transmission Vehicles, D for Code for the Sharp Variant of Hector, D for Code for Diesel 2.0 Engine, A for Month Code for January. Further 3 denotes Year code for the year 2020, H for Plant Code i.e. Halol Plant, 017514 is Unique Sequential Number allotted against the appellant's car. According to respondent No.2, VIN for all its vehicles is generated by following a fixed protocol which cannot be breached for any particular set of vehicles for any reason whatsoever. Thus, VIN is the most appropriate and accurate benchmark to identify the month and year of manufacturer of a particular vehicle.
10. The facts of the case in Praveen Kumar Mittal Vs Porsche India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (supra) are not akin to the present case. In the cited case, two sets of documents were produced by the complainant and the manufacturer. In that case, in Form No.21 the year of manufacturer was mentioned as 2014 whereas according to the document obtained by the complainant through RTI was having the manufacturing year as 2013. In the present case, there is no such ambiguity in the documents produced by the respondents. However, it is the appellant who has not produced the Registration Certificate of the vehicle which could clinch the matter more effectively. The Learned District Commission rightly came to the conclusion that there was no case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice made out by observing as under ;
"The perusal of the documents on record as well as pleadings of the parties reveals that the claim of the complainant is that the OPs have supplied him a 2019 Model Car instead of 2020 Model at the time of delivery i.e. 15.1.2020 and placed reliance on Ann.C-4, which is a screen short of display of the car in question showing it to be of 2019 Model. It is observed that in this very document Ann.C-4 the details of the vehicle i.e. Registration Number or Chassis Number are not reflecting to show as to which vehicle it relates. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on record the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question issued by Licensing Authority, Chandigarh so that the Model of the car could be checked. It is also observed that the complainant has failed to adduce sufficient documentary evidence to prove his case of alleged supply of old model of the car. Hence, no case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against the OPs."
11. In view of the above discussion, we find that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of facts and law on the point and does not suffer from any illegality and perversity warranting interference of this Commission.
12.. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
..................
PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J RAJESH KUMAR ARYA MEMBER