BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 86/2008
Date of presentation: 30/05/2008
Date of decision: 04/12/2009
Sh. Ram Dyal S/o Sh. Rakha Ram,
R/o Village Sainsiwala, P.O. Barotiwala,
Tehsil Kasauli,and District Solan H.P.
… Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Sikand and Company, Chambaghat, Tehsil and District Solan (H.P.) Through its Manager (Sales)/ Director.
2. M/s Tata Motors, Through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Bombay House, Fort, Mumbai.
…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. D.C. Sharma, Advocate, vice
Mr. Raman Gupta, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Gagan Sharma, Advocate, vice
Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Sukh Ram, Advocate vice
Mr. P.K. Kukreja, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, he was lured by the OP No.1, to purchase truck fro it, hence, he purchased a truck from the OP No.1, on, 11.02.2008, for an amount of Rs.8,68,956/-, which was purchased by him on hire purchase from financier, and later on, came to know that he had been befooled by the OPs, by supplying a, 2007 model Chassis instead of 200 model. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OP No.1, in its written version, to the complaint, contended that, the complainant at his won inspected and selected the vehicle, and also arranged for the finance and purchased the vehicle, on, 11.02.2008. The OP No.1, contend that the vehicles are manufactured by the OP No.2, and the same was sold to him, as has been received from the OP No.2. The OP No.2, in its separate reply has contended that, the complainant has not provided any proof to them qua sale of vehicle pertaining to 2007 model. They have further contended that since the complainant has never approached them qua the sale of 2007 model, hence, it is alleged that the complaint being false, deserves dismissal. As such, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in supplying him, 2007 model instead of 2008 model, on, 11.02.2008, hence, having indulged in an unfair trade practice. The OPs, in their written version, has come up with a plea that that, since, their, is, no proof qua the model of 2007 being sold in 2008, hence, the OPs, cannot be fastened with the liability to pay, damages, hence, is, seeking to exculpate their liability.
6. Annexure C-1, is, a copy of temporary certificate of registration detailing Chassis No.373344 MSZ 142557, Engine No.697TC55MSZ155166, truck, which fact, is, also discernible from Annexure C-2, which is, a copy of insurance cover, wherein the date of manufacturing has been detailed as 2007. Hence, this document is sufficient to prove the fact that the complainant, had been supplied 2007 model, in the year 2008, and the aforesaid documents, having remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on the part of the OPs, has to be accorded sanctity. More so, when, the OP has not placed proof that, the, chassis & engine number so detected in the registration certificate pertained not to the year 2007, but, to the year 2008. For lack of repudiation, to the aforesaid documents, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination, that, the complaint, filed by the complainant, is, false and vexatious, rather, the complaint filed by him, hence, demonstrates not only a deficiency in service, but, also shows indulgence of the OPs, in an unfair trade practice, hence, cannot exculpate their liability, on the score that, the complainant had failed to approach them with proof, qua the sale of 2007 model, in the year 2008.
7. Consequently, the complaint, is allowed, and OP No.2-manufacturer of the product, is, directed to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, for selling a vehicle of 2007, model, in the year 2008, together with litigation costs of Rs.2500/-. These payments shall be made to the complainant, by the OP No.2, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP No.2, shall also be liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.5,000/-. However, the complaint qua OP No.1, is, dismissed. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 4th day of December, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Virender Thakur) (Arun Bala Sharma)
Member Member.