A Compensation Application has been filed under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Applicant alleging unfair trade practices on the part of the Respondent in regard to his having purchased a Bajaj Scooter from them in October 1999 claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/- apart from a direction to the Respondent to remove the defects in the scooter.
2.	According to the Applicant, he had purchased a Bajaj Scooter from the Respondent on 8.10.1999 by paying an amount of Rs. 23,649/-. A certificate of registration was issued to him for the said scooter, a copy of which has been filed. It was later on found that the scooter sold to him was defective and did not give the same performance as specified like instead of 45 kms/litre mileage, performance was only 40 kms; as against the maximum speed of 120 kms/hr, according to specifications, it did not run over 40 kms/hour, etc., The colour of the rear portion of the scooter differed from the front portion. It has also been alleged that though he wanted 'Bajaj Super' scooter, which was suitable for his height, he was thrust with 'Bajaj Chetak' scooter. He has also alleged that scooter was shown to him in a relatively dark place of the showroom having insufficient light. The first service was also not done and as a result of which he had to spend extra money on the service of the scooter. He was never allowed to see the Company Engineer on periodical routine visits. The dealer got his signature on the service cards deceitfully. In his affidavit of evidence, he has also alleged that the scooter supplied was old and had met with an accident and that its height was more which is not suitable to his height. The Applicant had also taken up the matter with the General Manager, Maharashtra Scooter Limited, \he manufacturer and has filed correspondence showing that the manufacturer had assured him to take up the matter with the dealer. In short, his case is that the Respondent had committed unfair trade practices in selling this scooter to him adopting deceptive means.
3.	The Respondents in their reply have stated that the Applicant had filed a case before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Aligarh on the same issue. They have denied that they had supplied any defective sub-standard, unwanted or old re-conditioned vehicle as a new one. On the other hand, the Applicant had purchased this vehicle after fully satisfying himself. The Applicant chose to buy Bajaj Chetak Metallic scooter out of 100 vehicles stocked in the showroom after having seen different models and after having taken a test-ride on 8.10.99. He had duly signed the bill as well as the delivery certificate and registered it in his name from RTO Office. Had he not been satisfied with the scooter, he would not have signed the Registration papers. The showroom of the Respondent is well electrified with a glass frontage having sufficient sunlight and is located on the main GT Road in the heart of the city. Besides this, 4 more vehicles were sold on the same day. Therefore, the allegation that he was shown the scooter in a tricky manner is wrong. The Respondent never forced the Applicant nor did they exercise any undue influence on him. They have also denied the allegation with regard to the first service or that the signatures of the Applicant were taken deceptively on service card. In fact, the Applicant never came for service of the scooter on 7.11.99 and got it done by some local mechanic of the city. As such, he is not entitled for any warranty of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions. The Applicant came on 4.12.99 for service in the workshop of the Respondent and complained about plug, bubbling, sound and starting problem, which were noted on the job card and were rectified. The job card was signed by the Applicant to his satisfaction. Notwithstanding that the Applicant had filed a false complaint with SSP, Aligarh on 13.12.99 with a view to harass the Respondents. It has also been contended by them that in his complaint before the District Forum, he had only claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, the present application has been filed with malice and is frivolous and vexatious. The Respondents have also claimed that they sell about 300 vehicles in a month and the Officers/Engineers of the manufacturing company regularly visit the Respondent and its showrooms. The Respondents have filed the copy of the job card for service done by them on 4.12.99, which has been signed by the Applicant.
4.	Based on the pleadings following issues were framed:
	i)	Whether the Respondent has been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application?
	ii)	Whether the Applicant has suffered any loss or damage as a consequence of the alleged unfair trade practices?
	iii)	Relief, if any.
5.	During the enquiry, the Applicant was cross-examined as a witness by the Respondent and the Respondent's witness was also cross-examined by the Applicant in person.
6.	Since these issues are inter-connected, they are discussed together. On the issue of Applicant having filed a case before the District Forum, on the basis of records filed by the Respondents, it is seen that the claim was for Rs. 5,000/- and finally in July 2001, the case was dismissed as withdrawn with the direction to the present Applicant to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-. It is seen that there were some allegations made by the Applicant against some of the functionaries of the Forum. The Applicant came to the Commission only after this case had been dismissed as withdrawn by the District Forum. The fact of having purchased the scooter from the Respondent is not in dispute. It has been stated by the Applicant during his cross-examination that he had signed the invoice slip dated 8.10.99 and that the delivery of the scooter was given at 4 p.m. There is no evidence led by the Applicant to prove that at the time when he took the delivery, it was dark inside and therefore, he could not see the colour of the scooter or the type of scooter he was buying. It is also not understood as to why did he sign the invoice slip and subsequently also the registration as well as the delivery certificate. The Respondents have maintained that he came for the first time to get his scooter serviced on 4.12.99 and, as per service card a number of defects were noticed and noted thereon which were rectified. It is seen from that service card that the Applicant had signed it and this was after 2 months of his buying the scooter. In the Motor Cover Note issued by the United India Insurance Company Limited, the year of manufacturing of this scooter has been shown 1999 and this note was issued on 11.10.99 and therefore, the argument of this scooter being an old scooter as alleged by the Applicant does not seem to be based on any facts. There is no evidence led by him to prove that the scooter had met with an accident earlier and was re-conditioned one. Even if it is so, it is not understood as to how literate person like the Applicant could sign all the documents and again bring the scooter for servicing on 4.12.1999 where none of these defects were noted in the service card. The Applicant has on the other hand certified under his signatures on that service card that he was fully satisfied with the repair. It is also noted that in his application filed by him before the District Forum, he had claimed a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as against what he has claimed now. We note from the evidence on record that the Respondents have a well-situated showroom with glass frontage and therefore, allegation of Applicant that the scooter was sold to him in a relatively darker place is not established due to lack of evidence led by the Applicant to prove his allegation. Admittedly, the scooter has been serviced outside by the Applicant and as such the warranty of the Respondent will not be valid as per the terms and conditions of the warranty filed by the Respondents. Therefore, the allegations of Respondents having committed an unfair trade practice are not established based on the evidence on record.
7.	In the premises, the application is rejected. There will be no order as to costs.