LAWS(NCD)-2012-5-65

DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA Vs. RAJEEV SABLOK

Decided On May 30, 2012
DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA Appellant
V/S
Rajeev Sablok Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Dinesh Chandra Gupta, (Petitioner herein) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.217/2006 decided in favour of Rajeev Sablok and another, Respondents herein.

(2.) In his complaint, Petitioner who was the original complainant before the District Forum, contended that he had purchased a Maruti Car Model M-800 E II having Chassis No.2472067 and Engine No.5202-1 on 09/05/2003 for Rs.2,13,677/- from Respondent No.1 who is the authorized dealer of Respondent No.2(Maruti Udyog Ltd.). Two days after the date of purchase, Petitioner noted that there was malfunctioning of the car's fan and some pieces of glass from the windscreen started coming out. During the first free service on 20.06.2003, noted that in the Job Car under the heading "Vehicle History(Last Visit)" dated 02.05.2003 (i.e. prior to his having been delivered the Car on 09.05.2003), it was recorded that 12 parts of his vehicle had either been replaced or repaired. Petitioner was, therefore, convinced that he had been supplied an old Car instead of a new one and being aggrieved, he filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and requested that the Respondents be directed to pay him the following amounts: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_291_NCDRC_2012_1.html</FRM>

(3.) On being served, Respondents filed a statement denying the fact that an old vehicle has been sold to Petitioner. According to the Respondents, an absolutely new vehicle was sold to the Petitioner which is confirmed by the specific Chassis and Engine numbers which was also duly registered on 14.05.2003 with the Regional Transport Authority, Dhanbad. The Petitioner also took delivery of the vehicle without any complaint and only some minor touch-up was done to the vehicle before handing it over to the Petitioner and there was no manufacturing or any major defect in the new vehicle.