RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No. 87 of 2005

Mr. Puneet Singhal, Prop. of Pioneer

Enterprises (I), Registered Office at 303,

Patel House, B-11, Ranjeet Nagar

Commercial Complex, New Delhi-

110008                                                            ..Revisionist.

Versus

1- M/s Honda Siel Cars Ltd.,

    Plot No..A-1, Sector-40, l

    Greator Noida (UP)

2- M/s Capital Cars (Pvt.) Ltd.,

    Ansal Plaza Main Link Road,

    Vaishali, Ghaziabad (UP).                     …Opp. Parties.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

None responds.

Date   27.4.2016

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.2005 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Ghaziabad in complaint case no.77 of 2005, the revisionist/complainant Sri Puneet Singhal has preferred the instant revision under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the Forum below without proper appreciation of law or application of mind and therefore, suffers from material irregularity and illegality. It has been prayed that if the impugned order is not set aside then the revisionist will suffer irreparable financial loss.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the

(2)

revisionist/complainant Sri Puneet Singhal purchased a Honda City Motor Car bearing  Registration no.UP 14 K 7451 from M/s Capital Cars (Pvt) Ltd., Ansal Plaza, Ghaziabad in June, 1999 for a sum of Rs.6,18,925.00 excluding taxes. It has been alleged that the car sold to him was a sub-standard one and had various manufacturing defects in it. The manufacturer and the dealer failed to remove the defects. Consequently, complaint case no.77 of 2005 was preferred for redressal of his grievances. The car was purchased in June, 1999 but the complaint was preferred in 2005. The complaint was, however, admitted on 22.6.2005 on the ground that a part of cause of action arose within the period of limitation. It also directed the revisionist/complainant to suitably amend his complaint in the light of certain directions/observation made in the order dated 22.6.2005. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. The Forum below has considered all facts, circumstances and documentary evidence on record at the time of admission and there is no remiss in the order. Consequently, the revision, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.  

ORDER

The revision is dismissed and the revisionist/ complainant is directed to appear before the Forum below on 23.5.2016. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the order be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.3