Complaint
- Old & defective scooter and excess charge - Complaint
dismissed by District Forum based on facts & documents -
Appeal before Delhi State Consumer Forum against the District
Forum Order - Appeal dismissed on the same grounds.
Important Point
Accepted
practice is that it is the date of delivery and not the
date of booking, which is relevant for the purpose of charging
cost of vehicles from customers.
Order
The present appeal, filed by the Appellant u/s 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein referred to as 'the
Act') is directed against order dated 14.08.2001 passed
by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint
case no. 982/1998 - entitled Shri Yogesh Aggarwal vs Mis
Gautam Motors.
Alleging deficiencies in service, the Appellant had filed
a complaint u/s 12 of the Act against M/s Gautam Motors.
The grievance of the Appellant in the complaint filed by
him, in nutshell, was two-fold, viz., (i) that an excess
amount of Rs. 703/- had been charged from the Appellant
by the Respondent towards the cost of the scooter in question;
and (ii) that an old and defective scooter had been given
to him instead of a new and defect free scooter. In the
complaint filed by the Appellant, it was prayed that the
Respondent be directed to replace the scooter with a new
scooter and the Appellant be compensated for the sufferings
and be also awarded the cost of litigation.
The claim of the Appellant in the District Forum was resisted
by the Respondent. The stand taken by the Respondent in
its reply/written version was that the Respondent had given
to the Appellant not an old scooter but a new scooter on
27.07.1998, which was manufactured by the manufacturer on
13.06.98. It was also stated that the scooter delivered
by the Respondent to the Appellant was defect free. It was
stated that the Appellant was charged the cost prevalent
on the date of the delivery of the scooter in question to
the Appellant and that no excess amount had been charged
by the Respondent from the Appellant towards the cost of
the scooter in question.
The Learned District Forum vide impugned order has held
that there was no deficiency in service or any unfair trade
practice on the part of the Respondent and on the basis
of the above findings, has dismissed the complaint filed
by the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present
appeal u/s 15 of the Act.
We have heard the Appellant at length on the question of
admission of the present appeal and have also carefully
gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis
of material on record, it is not in dispute that the scooter
in question, purchased by the Appellant on 27.07.98, was
delivered by the manufacturer M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd to the
Respondent on 11.07.98 along with 15 other scooters detailed
in the gate pass dated 11.07.98. In the presence of the
above facts, the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent
had delivered an old scooter to the Appellant instead of
a new scooter is devoid of substance and deserves to be
rejected. The other documents on record, as detailed in
the impugned order, also do not support the allegations
of the Appellant to the effect that the scooter in question
was defective. As regards the grievance of charging excess
amount towards the cost of scooter, the position is that
the Respondent had charged the cost of the scooter in question,
prevalent on the date of delivery. The correctness of the
above fact is not even disputed before us by the Appellant.
The contention of the Appellant advanced by him in this
regard is that he should have been charged the cost prevalent
on the date of booking and not the date of delivery. The
above contention advanced by the Appellant is also devoid
of substance and is liable to be rejected because as per
the accepted practice, it is the date of delivery and not
the date of booking which is relevant for the purpose of
charging cost of such like articles.
For the above reasons, the present appeal, filed by the
Appellant is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limini with no order
as to costs.
|
