First Appeal No. 40 of 2014. Case: Satluj Motors Vs Tara Chand Sharma. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 40 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shashi Bhushan, Advocate and For Respondents: Roshah Lal Chauhan and Manoj Chauhan, Advocates |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, President and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | 2014 (II) ShimLC 861 |
| Judgement Date | May 12, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, President
-
Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it and respondents No. 2 and 3 by respondent No. 1-Tara Chand Sharma, has been allowed only against the present appellant and direction given to it to refund a sum of Rs. 55,642/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of refund of the said amount of money and also to pay Rs. 1.00 lac on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension and Rs. 3,000/-, as litigation expenses. Respondent-Tara Chand Sharma, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that on 05.04.2012, under a scheme for exchange of old car, he purchased a Tata Indigo GLX car from the present appellant and paid a sum of Rs. 5,16,500/-. It was stated that his old car was evaluated at Rs. 1,70,000/- and in addition, he paid a sum of Rs. 5,60,600/- at the time of delivery of the car and also a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, in cash. It was stated that he was given to understand that the car was of 2012 model, but actually it was a car of 2011 model and the fact came to notice of the respondent-complainant, when he received the sale certificate, which was supplied subsequently and not at the time of delivery of car. It was stated that at the time of delivery of car, only the gate pass and the insurance cover had been made available, in which the year of the manufacture of the car was indicated to be 2012. Further, it was stated that the car had many defects, which were pointed out to the appellant, but he did not remove those defects to his satisfaction, despite the same having been pointed out during the warranty period. It was also stated that the respondent/complainant had been over-charged, on account of price of the car. On these allegations, the respondent/complainant prayed for issuance of a direction to the appellant to replace the car with a new car of 2012 model and also to pay damages and litigation expenses.
-
Complaint was contested by the appellant and it was stated that the old car, which the respondent gave in exchange, was evaluated at Rs. 88,782/and not at Rs. 1,70,000/-, as stated in the complaint. Also, it was stated that the car of 2011 model had been selected by the respondent-complainant himself, as a rebate of Rs...
To continue reading
Request your trial