RAJ KUMAR vs Tayal India Motors Pvt Ltd

THE petitioner/complainant purchased a Tata Nano Lx Car on 31.01.2011 from the respondent/OP Tayal India Motors Private Limited. According to the complainant, at the time of sale, the respondent/OP had assured him that the vehicle would be of 2011 model but when the car was handed over to him, he found that it was a 2009 model and not a 2011 model. The complainant after serving a legal notice upon the opposite party approached the concerned District Forum by way of complaint.

THE respondent/OP did not appear before the District Forum and, therefore, was proceeded exparte. Vide order dated 12.07.2013, the District Forum on perusal of the sale certificate Exhibit C -1 noted that a vehicle 2009 model was sold to the complainant on 31.01.2011 and accordingly directed the OP to replace the said vehicle by a brand new Tata Nano Car of 2013 model. The respondent/opposite party was also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 2200/ - as litigation expenses to the complainant.

BEING aggrieved from the order of the OP approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission vide its order dated 20.05.2014 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from dismissal of this complaint, the complainant has approached this Commission by way of present revision petition. No one has appeared for the petitioner even on the third call. Accordingly, we have proceeded to decide the revision petition on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent.

THE learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the sale certificate which is available at page 26 of the paper -book and has pointed out that the month and year of manufacturing of the vehicle has been clearly mentioned as March 2009 in the aforesaid sale -certificate dated 31.01.2011. He also submits that the sale certificate was issued to the complainant alongwith the invoice, on the same day. The contention of the learned counsel is that though the vehicle sold by them manufactured in March 2009, they had disclosed it to the complainant that the vehicle being sold to him was a March 2009 model. Thus, according to the opposite party, no misrepresentation as regards to the age of the vehicle was made to the complainant at the time of the sale.

SINCE the complainant did not lodge any protest and accepted the delivery of the vehicle, alongwith the aforesaid sale certificate, we are satisfied that he knew, at the time of purchase of vehicle itself, that he was purchasing a March 2009 model and not a 2011 model. Had the respondent represented to the complainant that a 2011 model would be delivered to him, he would not have accepted the sale certificate dated 31.1.2011 disclosing the month and year of the manufacturing of the vehicle to be March 2009. There was nothing illegal in selling a vehicle manufactured in March 2009 to a customer in June 2011, provided that the month and year of manufacture of the vehicle was disclosed to him at the time of its sale. That having been done and having been evidenced by way of sale -certificate dated 31.01.2011, we find no deficiency on the part of the opposite party in selling the aforesaid vehicle to the petitioner.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.