Kamal Auto Hyundal vs Pawan Chand

MR. Justice , Member-Heard Counsel for the petitioner. 1. The complainant/respondent had purchased car Santro Xing XL Euro III manufactured by OP No. 1 on 30.10.2005. The said car was purchased through the present petitioner-OP No. 2 who represented that the Ex-showroom price of the car was Rs. 3,63,395. The OP No. 2 agreed to give discount of Rs. 5,000 on Ex-Showroom price and also to pay premium of first year''s insurance and payment of registration fee. The complainant accordingly gave cheque of Rs. 1,58,395 on 1.11.2005 and a Demand Draft dated 4.11.2005 for Rs. 2,00,000. However, subsequently, when the bill for the purchase of the car was sent to the complainant, he came to know that the real Ex-Showroom price of the car was Rs. 3,33,000 and the complainant was liable to pay only Rs. 3,28,000, whereas the petitioner/OP No. 2 had charged a total sum of Rs. 3,58,395. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, the complainant had approached the District Forum.

THE District Forum accepted the case of the complainant and after placing reliance on the Ex-Showroom price of the car as Rs. 3,33,000 out of which, Rs. 5,000 was to be deducted as special discount came to the conclusion that the total price to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 3,28,000, whereas the petitioner-OP No. 2 had charged Rs. 3,38,395. Accordingly, the District Forum ordered to refund Rs. 30,395 with 9% interest from 4.11.2000 as also Rs. 10,000 for mental agony as well as litigation charges of Rs. 5,000.

THE petitioner had challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission. The Commission concurred with the findings of the District Forum, but set aside the award of Rs. 10,000 towards mental agony.

THERE are, thus, concurrent findings of two Fora below and the findings are based upon evidence on record. We have no reason whatsoever to take a different view of the matter inasmuch as the petitioner-OP No. 2 had misrepresented that Ex-Showroom price of the vehicle was Rs. 3,63,395, whereas the Ex-Showroom price was only Rs. 3,33,000, which is clear from the bill for the sale of the car.

IN view of the above, we do not find that any interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of Fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.