M/S. Samarpan Samiti vs Navneet Bansal & Anr.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member

The complainant purchased the Chassis of a Swaraj Majda van from Prakash Motors, vide invoice dated 15.11.2008, for Rs.639900/-. The body of the said chassis was got fabricated for a consideration of Rs.397250/- for which an invoice dated 2.6.2009 was issued by Prakash Motors. The case of the complainant is that though the chassis had been manufactured in the year 2005 as would be evident from its Registration Certificate, it was sold to them as 2009 model. This is also the case of the petitioner / complainant that there were some defects in the ambulance van which they had got fabricated. The petitioner/ complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint filed on 1.4.2011, about 01 year and 10 months after fabrication of the vehicle.

The complaint was resisted by the respondents who stated in their reply that at the time of the sale, the petitioner/complainant was clearly informed that a 2005 model chassis was being sold to them. The respondents also denied any defect in the ambulance van fabricated for the petitioner.

The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the respondent Prakash Motors approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 11.09.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant/petitioner is before this Commission.

As rightly held by the State Commission, the initial onus was upon the petitioner/complainant to prove the alleged defects in the ambulance van fabricated for it. No Automobile Engineer or any other Expert was examined to prove any manufacturing defect in the chassis or in the body fabricated on that chassis. In the absence of an expert evidence to prove the alleged defect, the State Commission in the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, was justified in holding that no manufacturing defect had been proved.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant is that a chassis manufactured in 2005 was sold to them as 2009 model. The plea taken by the petitioner/complainant is ex facie false since the sale invoice of the chassis is dated 15.11.2008, which gives model number, chassis number as well as the engine number. Obviously a chassis manufactured in 2009 could not have been sold by way of an invoice dated 15.11.2008. If the invoice itself is of November 2008 and it bears chassis number as well as engine number, it cannot be accepted that the seller had represented to the buyer that the vehicle/chassis had been manufactured in the year 2009. The vehicle/chassis manufactured in 2009 could not be even in existence in November 2008. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner/complainant does not inspire confidence and cannot be accepted. Moreover, the vehicle had been registered on 12.6.2009. No one would have accepted the vehicle without Registration Certificate, if the registration is got done by the seller. Therefore, on receiving the Registration Certificate, the petitioner / complainant would certainly have come to know that the chassis had been manufactured in the year 2005, year of manufacture is having been given on the Registration Certificate. Therefore, had the respondents sold the vehicle/chassis as a 2009 model to the petitioner / complainant they would not have accepted the vehicle and would not have taken its delivery. The fact that they took delivery of the vehicle without any protest is a clear indicator that they were aware of the correct year of the chassis.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisonal jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore dismissed, without any order as to costs.