GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. GOYAL MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SH . Gurbachan Singh, appellant/ complainant (in short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum").

(2.) FACTS in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"). It was pleaded that the appellant purchased Tata Safari EX -iii bearing chassis No. 403071BSZN0365, Engine No. DICOR06BSZ 821636 on 13.3.2007. On 27.4.2007, the appellant visited respondent No. 1 for free service of the said vehicle and at the time of issuing the bill, previous job card and service history was also displayed on the computer of respondent No. 1 and the appellant came to know that the said Tata Safari purchased by him is a vehicle which had met with an accident and the same was repaired on 9.3.2007, while in the custody of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 sold the said Tata Safari without disclosing the fact of accident and charged the price of a brand new vehicle. The appellant was shocked to know of this fact and the act of the respondent No. 1 amounts to misrepresentation and unfair trade practice.

(3.) THE appellant requested the respondents to replace the said vehicle with a new one, or to return him the amount paid, but the respondents kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The appellant also got issued the legal notice, but the respondents did not file any reply and ultimately, refused to pay back anything. It was prayed that the respondents be directed to replace the Tata Safari with a new one, or to return the amount paid by the appellant, with compensation of Rs. 40,000 and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 4,400.