Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/595

Gurdep singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Daljit Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

01 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 595 dated 24.12.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 01.08.2022.

 

Gurdeep Singh aged about 50 years son of Sh. Amar Singh, resident of House No.112, Ward No.23, Mistri Wali Gali, Near Khooni Masit, Purana Moga, Tehsil ad District Moga                                                                                                                                                                          ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Daljeet Kumar son of Pritam, resident of House No.236, Street No.03, Varinder Nagar, Near Bye Pass, Ludhiana.
2. Tirath Auto Deals, Gill Road, Scooter Market, Ludhiana-14, through its Proprietor.                                                                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection    Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP1                         :         Exparte.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 30.05.2019, OP1 agreed to sell scooter bearing No.PB-10DQ-9101 in favour of the complainant. OP2 is an auto dealer and played active part in convincing the complainant that the said vehicle was in a good running condition. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to purchase the scooter for a sum of Rs.17,500/-. On 04.06.2019, the vehicle started omitting smoke. On 05.08.2019, another defect was detected  in the motor of the scooter. The complainant had to get the scooter repaired from Rakesh Auto Spare, Akalsar Road, Moga on payment of Rs.2680/- vide bill dated 06.06.2019. On 05.08.2019, the complainant had to get replaced the battery of the scooter  from Gaba Battery House, Near Railway Crossing, Moga on payment of Rs.950/-. On 07.08.2019, the vehicle again developed another defect i.e. omission of smoke. On 10.08.2019, a mechanic of Lovely Auto, Moga repaired the vehicle for which the complainant had to pay another sum of Rs.200/-. On 11.11.2019, the vehicle again started omitting smoke and it was got repaired on 18.11.2019 from M/s. Rakesh Auto Spare, Akalsar Road, Moga on payment of Rs.3960/-. OP1 also did not issue a No Objection Certificate with the result the complainant could not get the scooter transferred in his name. Even now the vehicle is not in a proper running condition despite the fact that the complainant had spent about Rs.10,000/- on its repair. In this manner, the Ops sold the vehicle by concealing actual defects in the vehicle due to which the complainant has suffered loss. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, Rs.10,000/- on account of repair of the vehicle and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.                Upon notice, OP1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor the complainant has any cause of action against OP2 who is only a commission agent. According to OP2, he never gave any guarantee or warrantee in respect of the scooter in question. The scooter was purchased in the year 2012 OP2 received a commission of Rs.500/- from the complainant and OP1. Moreover, the complainant checked the vehicle thoroughly before purchasing the same and was fully aware about its condition. It has been denied if the vehicle started omitting smoke on 04.06.2019 or a defect was detected in the motor of the vehicle on 05.08.2019. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainant has not been appearing in this case since 12.07.2021. However, the complainant attached affidavit Ex. C1 along with documents i.e. receipt Ex. C2, bill Ex. C3, copy of RC Ex. C4, copy of warrantee of battery ex. C5 and copy of Aadhar card Ex. C6.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sanjay Mahotra, Partner of OP2 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for OP2 and gone through the record and proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that a defective scooter was sold by OP1 and OP2 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.17,500/- on 30.05.2019. As per registration certificate ex. C4, the manufacturing year of the scooter is April 2012. It is, therefore, evident that the complainant purchased a pre-owned scooter which had already been used for seven years. It is a matter of common knowledge that normally any guarantee or warranty of a vehicle such as scooter is given by the manufacturing company only for a year or two and once the warranty period comes to an end, even the manufacturer cannot be held liable for any defect in the vehicle. Having bought a seven year old scooter, the complainant must have been aware about its condition and a scooter which is more than five years old cannot be expected to run smoothly like a new scooter. Therefore, if some defects occurred in the scooter, it cannot be attributed to any mis-representation or fraud on the part of the OPs. Once a vehicle is used for five years, some defects are found to occur due to its wear and treat. Moreover, it has not been disclosed as to how many kilometers the scooter had run when it was purchased by the complainant. Therefore, in our considered view, the OPs cannot be held responsible for the defects which occurred in the scooter after it was purchased by the complainant from the OPs as it was an old model having already been used for five years. Apart from that, the complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that there was some inherent defect in the vehicle.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Gurdeep Singh Vs Daljeet Kumar                                   CC/19/595 

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   OP1 exparte.

                   Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Advocate for OP2.

 

                   Learned counsel for OP2 closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. RA.

                   None turned up for the complainant today also nor evidence by the complainant produced. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 12.07.2021.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for OP2 heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.