State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director M/S Chittosho ... vs Amarjit Kaur on 7 September, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.441 of 2012
Date of institution : 11.4.2012
Date of decision : 7.9.2012
The Managing Director M/s Chittosho Motors, Show Room C-39, Industrial
Area, Phase-3, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
.......Appellant
Versus
Amarjit Kaur wife of Late Bhupinder Singh, resident of House No.2418-B,
Mundi Complex, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 8.2.2012 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri D.K. Singal, Advocate.
For the respondent : Shri Manjinder Singh son of respondent.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT:
Mrs. Amarjeet Kaur respondent had purchased Maruti Alto car from the appellants on 7.1.2011. She was given the impression that the car was of 2011 Model. She got the car registered with the District Transport Officer bearing registration certificate No.PB-65-M-5560 and at that time she came to know that the car was manufactured in October 2010. In other words, the car manufactured in October 2010 was sold to the respondent representing it to be First Appeal No.441 of 2012. 2 of 2011 Model. Hence the complaint for compensation/damages to the tune of Rs.2,15,000/-. Costs were also prayed.
VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS:
2. The appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondent had purchased Maruti Alto car from the appellants on 7.1.2011 but it was denied if it was told to her by misrepresenting that the car was of 2011 Model. The respondent clearly knew that the car was manufactured in the year 2010 and it was so mentioned on all the sale documents. It was denied if the appellants had ever represented to the respondent if the car was manufactured in the year 2011. It was also denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
3. The parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
4. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 8.2.2012 and awarded compensation against the appellants to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and costs amounting to Rs.2500/-.
5. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that it was never represented to the respondent if the car was of 2011 Model. Rather it was mentioned in all the documents that the car was manufactured in March, 2010. The respondent clearly knew on the date of purchase that the car was of 2010 Model and even then she had purchased it. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 8.2.2012 be set aside. First Appeal No.441 of 2012. 3
7. On the other hand, the submission of the representative of the respondent was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
8. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
9. In the complaint itself the respondent had nowhere alleged if she had gone to the premises of the appellants in October 2010 or on any date earlier to 7.1.2011 or if she had got the car booked with the appellants. The only allegation made by the respondent in para no.2 of the complaint was that on 7.1.2011 she had gone to the office of the appellants and purchased Maruti Alto car under the impression that the vehicle which she was purchasing was of 2011 Model. Although she had required the car two-three months earlier but she did not purchase the same and waited for two-three months so that she is able to purchase the car of 2011 Model instead of 2010 Model. The respondent has nowhere pleaded in the complaint if she had ever gone to the premises of the appellants two-three months before 7.1.2011 or if she had got the car booked with the appellants. Rather she has specifically taken a plea that she had gone to the premises of the appellants on 7.1.2011 and had purchased the car.
10. Moreover in para no.2 of the complaint the respondent had pleaded that she was under the impression that the car which she was purchasing was of 2011 Model and she was cheated as the car sold to her was of 2010 Model. In support of her plea the respondent had filed her affidavit as Ex.C-1 and a copy of the R.C. as Ex.C-2. In the R.C. month and year of manufacture was mentioned as October 2010. She has also produced the temporary certificate of registration Ex.C-3 issued by the appellants in which the year of manufacture is shown to be 2010.
11. The appellants have also placed on the file Sale Certificate in Form No.21 as Ex.C-5 in which again against column No.8 month and year of First Appeal No.441 of 2012. 4 manufacture is shown to be October 2010. Similarly the appellants have placed on the file Sales Certificate/Form No.21 as Ex.OP-1 in which month and year of manufacture is shown to be October 2010.
12. If the respondent herself remained under the impression that the car which she was purchasing on 7.1.2011 was of 2011 Model it is her fault.
13. The version of the respondent that she came to know after two-three months that the car was of 2010 Model was also entirely a false story when the documents of sale issued to her by the appellants on 7.1.2011 clearly revealed that the car was manufactured in October 2010. Therefore she had come to know immediately that the car was of 2010 Model and not of 2011 Model.
Therefore there is no truth in the version of the respondent that she was shocked to know after two-three months that the car was of 2010 Model and not of 2011 Model. In fact this had come to her notice on the date of purchase of the car itself.
14. The representative of the respondent drew the attention of this Commission towards the tax/vehicle & charges invoice dated 7.1.2011 as Ex.C-6 in which the order date was mentioned as 31.10.2010. It was submitted that it clearly reveals that the order was placed by the respondent with the appellants on 31.10.2010.
15. The contents of the complaint have been perused in the context of this document and submission of the respondent's representative. The respondent has nowhere pleaded if she had ever visited the office of the appellants on 31.10.2010 or if she had booked the car on that day with the appellants or if she had placed the order for the purchase of the car with the appellants on that date. Therefore this date does not represent if any such order of purchase was placed by the respondent with the appellants on 31.10.2010 and this date may be the internal arrangement of the appellants with the manufacturer. First Appeal No.441 of 2012. 5
16. In other words, the respondent has not placed on the file any document to show if the appellants at any stage had represented to the respondent that the car was of 2011 Model. Rather in all the documents of sale, month and year of manufacture of the car was shown to be October 2010.
17. Keeping in view the discussion held above, the respondent has totally failed to show if any misrepresentation was made to her by the appellants about the model of the car to be of 2011 Model while actually it was of 2010 Model. Therefore no cheating on the part of the appellants has been proved by the respondent.
18. Accordingly this appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 8.2.2012 is set aside. Resultantly the complaint of the respondent is dismissed.
19. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.11,250/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 11.4.2012. This amount of Rs.11,250/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
20. The arguments in this case were heard on 6.9.2012 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
September 7, 2012 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER
First Appeal No.441 of 2012. 6