^{STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,}

^{UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH}

^{Sukant Gupta son of Late Sh. Suraj Parkash Gupta resident of 552, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh 160 011.}

                                     ^Versus

^{1.  HONDA SIEL CARS LIMITED, Plot No.A-1, Sector 40-41, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), through its Customer Relations Manager;}

^{2.  LALLY MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, Prestige Honda, Plot No.6, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its General Manager.}

 ^{.…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.}

^{Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.}

^BEFORE:

^{Argued by:Sh. Sukant Gupta, appellant in person.}

^{PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER}

^2.                   

^3.      

^4.                 

^5.                

^6.                

^7.                

^8.                

^{9.                  that the vehicle remained without insurance, for ten days, was specifically denied. It was further stated that the Insurance was done on 9.6.2011, and the vehicle was also taken out of the showroom on 9.6.2011. It was further stated that although the Sale Certificate was issued on 31.5.2011, at the insistence of the complainant, yet since in the first instance, the balance payment was not made and secondly there was no Insurance, the vehicle kept lying in the workshop. It was further stated that there was no written or oral agreement with the complainant regarding the provision of CD Player to him by Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 was neither deficient, in rendering service nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied}

^10.              

^11.              

^12.               

^13.              

^14.               

^15.              

^{16.              Moreover, looking at the credentials of the complainant, the respondents/Opposite Parties, issued Invoice dated 31.5.2011, as the appellant/complainant wanted to avail of the benefits and corporate discount, which were available on or before 31.5.2011, but due to the financial difficulties, he did not take the delivery on 31.5.2011. Thus, we find force in the plea of the respondents/Opposite Parties, that the complainant himself agreed to take the delivery of vehicle on 9.6.2011, and not on the promised date viz. 31.5.2011.The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that if there was any dissatisfaction or discrepancy, in the date of invoice, and the date of delivery, the complainant could refuse to take delivery of the vehicle or record his protest, which he did not do so.} 

^{17.              music C.D. Player, height adjustment seat, body colour door handles and music controls on steering, we have carefully perused Annexures C-1 and C-3. While Annexure C-1 is duly signed by the appellant/complainant and the representative of the Opposite Parties, Annexure C-3 is undated and the same has not been signed by anybody. In the sales contract, Annexure C-1, there is a column “Were you committed anything else by our Sales Consultant?” Against the said column, Column ‘No’ has been ticked.}

^18.              

^19.              

^20.              

^21.              

^22.              

^23.              

^24.              

^25.              

^Pronounced.

^{April 17, 2014.}

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

       Ad

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.119 of 2014)

^{Argued by:Sh. Sukant Gupta, appellant in person.}

Dated the 17^th

ORDER

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum has been upheld.

Ad