State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ram Rachhpal vs Modern Motors on 17 May, 2012
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 572 of 2007
Date of institution: 23.04.2007
Date of decision : 17.05.2012
Ram Rachhpal s/o Prem Kumar c/o Des Raj Dairy Farm, backside Old Grain
Market, Shastri Nagar, Jagraon, District Ludhiana.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. Modern Motors, New Bughipura Chowk, G.T. Road, Moga.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., registered office : Gateway Building,
Apollo Bunder, Mumbai - 400 001.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 12.3.2007
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Moga.
Before:-
Mr.Jagroop Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Argued by:-
For the appellants : Shri Kapil Sharma, Advocate
For respondents No.1&2 : None
JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was dismissed.
2. According to the complainant, he purchased a Pick-up van from Modern Motors respondent No.1 on 3.2.2006 for Rs.4,30,550/-. He was First Appeal No.572 of 2007 2 given to understand that the vehicle was of 2006 make but when he applied for registration of the vehicle, it transpired that the manufacturing model of the said vehicle is 2005 and not 2006. The OPs have, however, charged from him Rs.4,30,550/- which is the price of 2006 model. It was alleged that concealing the correct information from the complainant to sell the vehicle amounts to unfair trade practice for which he claimed Rs.5 lacs as damages. The complainant first filed the complaint before the learned District Forum, Ludhiana but the same was withdrawn on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction on 10.10.2006 and the present complaint was filed on 23.10.2006.
3. The complainant prayed for replacing the vehicle with a new vehicle of 2006 model or to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation for the damages and loss suffered by him due to unfair trade practice adopted by the respondents.
4. OP respondent No.1 contested the complaint alleging that it is a frivolous one and not maintainable. It was alleged that a special discount of Rs.31,850/- was given to the complainant vide debit voucher dated 3.2.2006 and the total price paid by the complainant was Rs.3,98,700/-. It was admitted that in the sale certificate, the year of manufacture was mentioned by them as 2006 but it was inadvertent typing mistake. According to OP No.1, the complainant very well knew that the vehicle had been manufactured in 2005 and this fact was mentioned by him in the application moved to the Registering Authority for registration of the vehicle. It was denied if they are adopting unfair trade practice or if the complainant suffered any loss.
5. OP respondent No.2 also opposed the complaint alleging that when the complainant applied for registration of the vehicle, he mentioned First Appeal No.572 of 2007 3 the year of manufacture as December, 2005 which shows that he knew about the year of manufacture of the vehicle. It was denied if they ever represented that the vehicle was manufactured in 2006. Mentioning of the year 2006 in the sale certificate was stated to be a typographical mistake. They also denied the other allegations and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 12.3.2007 dismissed the complaint. The complainant has challenged the same through this appeal.
8. In this case, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 last appeared on 6.1.2010. Thereafter, 6 adjournments were granted but none appeared for OP respondent No.1. Being an old complaint, it could not be kept pending indefinitely when the respondents were not taking any interest in pursuing the appeal. We have, therefore, heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.
9. The OPs have admitted that the vehicle was sold to the complainant on 3.2.2006 and the sale invoice Ex.A6 was generated in this respect. They had issued the sale certificate Ex.A2 in which the month and year of manufacture was mentioned to be January, 2006. The case of the complainant is that when he applied for registration of the vehicle, he filled up the form A7 in which initially, the year of manufacture was mentioned by him as 2006 as depicted in Ex.A2. He was, however, told by the staff of the Registering Authority that the year of manufacture given by him was wrong, he again came to the OP No.1 but they again issued him a similar sale certificate Ex.A3 in which again the year of manufacture was mentioned as First Appeal No.572 of 2007 4 2006. However, the officials of the Registering Authority did not agree with it and wrote in Ex.A3 that it was manufactured in December, 2005, due to which, the complainant had to make a correction in Ex.A7 by scoring out 2006 and write in its place December, 2005. These facts fully explain as to how December, 2005 were mentioned by the complainant in Ex.A7 while getting the vehicle registered. The contention of the OPs that the complainant from the very beginning knew that it was a vehicle manufactured in 2005 is, therefore, falsified from this evidence. In fact, the complainant came to know of this fact, subsequently, when he went to get the vehicle registered and he was never told by the OPs that the year of manufacture of the vehicle was 2005 and not 2006.
10. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that even before the learned District Forum, a fraud was played with the complainant. When the OPs filed the written reply, the copies of the reply filed before the learned District Forum were not supplied to him. He referred to Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 attached with the memorandum of appeal which were given to him by the learned counsel for the respondents while filing the written reply. Copies of the written reply Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 given to the complainant are totally different from the reply filed by them, copies of which are Ex.A5 and Ex.A6. In the copies supplied to the complainant, no such fact was mentioned by the OPs if any rebate of Rs.31,850/- was given to the complainant vide voucher dated 3.2.2006. The learned counsel argued that in fact, he was kept in the dark about this voucher so that he is not able to rebut the same. Otherwise, the complainant had already mentioned in para 1 of the complaint that the vehicle was purchased by him from OP No.1 for Rs.4,30,550/-. There is no mention in the entire complaint if any voucher for Rs.31,850/- was given to him. It was the case of the OPs before the learned First Appeal No.572 of 2007 5 District Forum that the complainant already knew that the vehicle was manufactured in December, 2005 and due to this reason, a rebate of Rs.31,850/- was given to him regarding which Ex.P2 was prepared. The complainant has denied this fact. We do not find any merit in this contention of the OPs because if any such rebate had been given to the complainant, then, the same would have been reflected in the sale invoice Ex.A6 through which the full amount of Rs.4,30,550/- was received by OP No.1 for the sale of this vehicle. Had there been any rebate given to the complainant, the amount received from the complainant would have been deducted in the sale invoice Ex.A6 but it has not, at all, been deducted. It, therefore, shows that the voucher Ex.R2 has been fabricated by the OPs, subsequently, to put up the defence in this complaint.
11. There is no mention made in Ex.R2 as to how the amount of Rs.31,850/- was paid to the complainant. If it was paid through bank draft, then, the bank draft number would have been mentioned therein. If it was paid in cash, the OPs would have mentioned the cash amount having been paid. If a discount was given, then, it would have been reflected in the sale invoice Ex.C4 also. It, therefore, shows that Ex.R2 is not a genuine document and has been fabricated, subsequently. That is why, the OPs did not give the correct copy of the written reply to the complainant.
12. The contention of the OPs that the mentioning of the year 2006 was a typographical mistake is further falsified from Ex.A2 in which the month and year of manufacture has been mentioned as January, 2006. The vehicle was in fact manufactured in December, 2005. Had the year alone been a typographical mistake, then month would have been mentioned as December but it has not been so mentioned. Rather the month is mentioned as January. It, therefore, shows that there was deliberate attempt on the part First Appeal No.572 of 2007 6 of OP No.1 to project that the vehicle being purchased by him on 3.2.2006 was in fact a new one and had been manufactured in January, 2006 itself. Their contention that it was a typographical mistake cannot be accepted as correct because when again the complainant went to OP No.1 to obtain another sale certificate, the year of manufacture in Ex.A3 was again mentioned as 2006. This contention of the OPs was, therefore, wrongly believed by the learned District Forum.
13. When the vehicle manufactured in 2005 is sold by the OPs to the complainant alleging that it was manufactured in 2006 and the full sale price is obtained from him, it is unfair trade practice adopted by OP No.1. Not only this, in order to cover their mischief, they prepared a voucher Ex.R2 alleging that some rebate of Rs.31,850/- was given to him. The complaint of the complainant was, therefore, liable to succeed but has been wrongly dismissed by the learned District Forum which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the present appeal must succeed and the same is, accordingly, allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint is allowed. OP respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant appellant along with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the entire amount would carry interest @ 9% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.10.2006 till the amount is actually paid to him.
First Appeal No.572 of 2007 7
14. Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.
(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER May 17, 2012.
Paritosh Refer to reporter