M/S. SRINIVASA MOTORS vs PATAPANJULA RAMU & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 22.4.2013 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 330 of 2011- M/s. Srinivasa Motors Vs. Patapanjula Ramu & Anr. ; by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No. 1 approached opposite party No. 1/petitioner in January, 2010 for purchasing Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle. Opposite party promised to supply vehicle of the year 2010 and complainant obtained delivery of motor cycle on 20.1.2010 after paying Rs. 50,167/-. On approaching RTO by the complainant, he was intimated that vehicle was manufactured in 2009 instead of 2010. Opposite party committed deficiency in service in supplying vehicle of the year 2009. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was supplied to the opposite party in January, 2010 which was manufactured in January, 2010 but opposite party No. 2 committed mistake while registering the vehicle and showing it manufactured in December, 2009 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No. 2 submitted that office is functioning with 3-tier system for registration of new vehicles and block of Chassis of each and every manufacturer is loaded in central server and whenever they enter Chassis No., it automatically generates the month and year of manufacturer. It was further submitted that this vehicle was manufactured in December, 2009. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite part No. 1 to replace motor cycle by model of 2010 and further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Both the parties preferred appeal before State Commission and Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of complainant but in appeal filed by petitioner, opposite party was directed to refund price instead of replacement of vehicle, against which petitioner has filed this revision petition.

None appeared for respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded exparte.

Heard Learned for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that motor cycle sold to complainant was manufactured in January, 2010 and registering authority has wrongly mentioned it being manufactured in December, 2009 and Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that motor cycle was manufactured in January, 2010 which was dispatched by Haridwar plant on 4.1.2010 to the petitioner which was sold to the complaint. He has drawn my attention towards letter dated 15.1.2010 issued by Hero Honda Motors Ltd. to Regional Transport Office in which it has been mentioned that Passion Plus Spoke Wheel motor cycle bearing Frame No. MBLHA10EGAHA00001 and Engine No. HA10EB9HM06914 being manufactured with effect from 1.1.2010, which makes it clear that Frame No. MBLHA10EGAHA00105 must have been manufactured after 1.1.2010 which was sold by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. Merely because registering authority has mentioned in registration certificate December, 2009 as month and year of manufacturer of motor cycle without any basis, it cannot be presumed that it was manufactured in December, 2009. Opposite party No. 2 in its written statement mentioned that office is functioning with 3-tier system for registration of new vehicles which automatically generates month and year of manufacture but Learned State Commission observed in its order that this system was introduced in March, 2010 whereas vehicle was registered on 5.2.2010 and in such circumstances, I do not find any basis for entering December, 2009 as month and year of manufacturer of motor cycle.

Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that opposite party sold motor cycle in January, 2010 manufactured in December, 2009, I do not find practically any deficiency on the part of opposite party as he received vehicle in January, 2010 dispatched by manufacturer on 4.1.2010. At the most, there may be loss of depreciation for a period of one month for which no compensation is required to be paid and Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and Learned State Commission further committed error in modifying the order and directing refund of money.

Learned Counsel for respondent has placed reliance on judgments of this Commission in RP No. 2790 of 2008- Hind Motors (I) Ltd. Vs. Lakhbir Singh, I(2014)CPJ 120 (NC); in which vehicle was manufactured in July'' 2005 but was sold in January, 2006 without disclosing date of manufacture. This case is not applicable to the facts of the present case because opposite party received vehicle in January, 2010 and as per information mentioned above, it was manufactured in January, 2010. He also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in RP No. 2777 & 4057 of 2007- Jaswant Singh Vs. Malwa Automobiles (P) Ltd. & Ors., IV(2011) CPJ 300 (NC) ; in which vehicle manufactured in 2000 was sold showing manufactured in 2002. This case is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, revision petition is to be allowed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 22.4.2013 passed by State Commission Appeal No. 330 of 2011- M/s. Srinivasa Motors Vs. Patapanjula Ramu & Anr. and order of District Forum dated 28.4.2011 passed in Complaint No. 48 of 2010- Patapanjula Ramu Vs. The Proprietor, M/s. Srinivasa Motors & Anr . ; is set aside. Complaint stands dismissed.

Parties to bear their own cost.