HARI RAM GARG Vs. CHITTOSHO MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Hari Ram Garg against the order dated 26.02.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.818 of 2012.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 11.04.2011, petitioner/complainant purchased one Maruti Alto LXI Car from respondent No.1 (dealer) for Rs.2,88,379/- only when the actual price of the car was Rs.2,85,046/-. The respondent No.1 had received an excess amount of Rs.3,333/- which amounts to unfair trade practice. The car was delivered to the complainant on the same day at 8.00 p.m. without sale certificate and pollution certificate. On 18.04.2011 complainant visited the showroom of respondent no.1 with the complaint that AC of the car was not functioning. On 22.04.2011, sale certificate and pollution certificate were handed over to the petitioner with a delay of 11 days. On 26.04.2011, complainant visited the showroom of respondent No.1 with the complaint that AC of the car was not functioning properly. Respondent No.1 filled the gas and changed the rings. On 18.05.2011 complainant made the prayer for refund of the price of the car. Since then the car in question is in the custody of respondent No.1. Further the petitioner was called to collect the car but petitioner did not collect the same because AC was not giving proper cooling and it was further found that the front bumper of the car was also damaged. On 01.06.2011, complaint was filed by the petitioner/complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali, (in short 'the District Forum'). On 25.04.2012, District Forum allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

(3.) On 15.06.2012, First Appeal was filed by the respondent No.1/OP No.1 before State Commission, Punjab. The complainant also filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 26.02.2013 partly allowed the appeal of the respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 but dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant as under:-