SUBHASH Vs. GAUTAM AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition challenging impugned order dated 10.12.2012, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in (First Appeal No.1334 of 2012) vide which appeal of the petitioner challenging order dated 25.09.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon(for short, 'District Forum') was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are that petitioner had purchased Ashok Leyland Ecomet vehicle from Respondent No.1/ Opposite Party No.1 on 07.01.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,96,000/-. As per case of the petitioner, he had purchased the vehicle 'Model of 2007' but respondent no.1 delivered him the vehicle, having 'Model of 2005'. It is alleged that at the time of delivery the vehicle had rust, old tyres with cracks, its battery was dead and could not work property on road as sometimes its gearbox or engine or gas kit, brakes clutch plate etc. became out of order, time and again despite their repair from them. The petitioner asked the respondents to replace the vehicle but despite assurance, respondents failed to replace the same. By way of filing the complaint, the grievances of petitioner is that, respondents had fraudulently delivered him an old and defective vehicle. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondents, petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

(3.) Respondents contested the complaint. In their written statement they took the plea that petitioner was delivered the vehicle having 'Model 2007'.Even the registration certificate issued by the registering authority shows that the Model of the vehicle was of year 2007. The vehicle in question underwent strict quality control test before dispatch to the dealer, who also carried out pre-delivery inspection of vehicle delivered to the petitioner. There was no manufacturing defect in the vehicle and it was delivered to the petitioner in perfect road worthy condition by the respondent no.1. The petitioner brought the vehicle for routine maintenance purpose which was done from time to time. Denying any kind of deficiency respondents prayed for dismissal of complaint.