NARINDER KUMAR NARANG Vs. KOSMO AUTOMOBILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had purchased Accent Viva Car (petrol version) of 2005 model from respondent No. 1 on 6.4.2005 for an amount of Rs. 6,43,551. This car was manufactured by respondent No.2.

(2.) IT was further pleaded that it was only in the second week of February, 2007 that the appellant came to know that infact the year of manufacture of this car was 2004 and not 2005. This matter was brought to the notice of the respondents that they had cheated the appellant by misrepresenting the true facts. Legal notice dated 20.2.2007 was also served on the respondents but to no effect. Hence, the complaint for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs as damages, for Rs. 2 lacs as compensation for cheating and mental harassment and Rs. 33,75,000 as advertisement charges @ Rs. 5,000 per day with effect from 6.4.2005. Costs and interest were also prayed.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed the written reply. It was admitted by respondent No. 1 that the year of manufacture of the car was 2004. It was specifically brought to the notice of the appellant and he was given the discount of Rs. 70,869 for, this purpose. Therefore, it was denied if respondent No. 1 had misrepresented the facts to the appellant or if respondent No. 1 had cheated the appellant. Legal objections were also taken that the complaint was not maintainable and that it was barred by limitation. It was also specifically mentioned that the value of the car was Rs. 6,43,551, Rs. 500 were for temporary registration number and Rs. 23,432 for insurance cover and the total amount payable by the appellant to the respondents was Rs. 6,67,483 but the appellant had made the payment of Rs. 1,62,483 vide receipt No. 80 dated 7.4.2006, Rs. 13,050 vide receipt No. 369 dated 8.4.2006 and the loan amount of Rs. 4,21,081. The total amount paid by the appellant to the respondents against the amount of Rs. 6,67,483 was only Rs. 5,96,614 after availing the discount of Rs. 70,869. The appellant was fully aware on the date of its purchase that the model of the car was 2004 but the complaint has been filed by him more than 2 years thereafter by feign ignorance. Hence, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.