Misrepresentation regarding vehicle model year constitutes grounds for partial compensation in consumer disputes.

1. The challenge in this appeal, under S.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short), is to the order dated 15/02/2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred as "District Commission" for brevity), in Complaint Case No. 402/2017 filed by the complainant / respondent No. 1 herein, whereby allowing the complaint the opposite party No. 1 / appellant herein was directed to pay the complainant within one month Rs.9,20,000, i.e. the price of the vehicle with interest @ 8% from the date of receipt of the said amount and in turn the complainant was to return the vehicle to the opposite party No. 1. Apart from that, the opposite party No. 1 was also directed to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental agony due to misrepresentation committed by the opposite party No. 1 along with cost of litigation Rs.3,000 within one month to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 has been exonerated from any liability on the ground that it being the manufacturer of the vehicle whereas the matter is found to be between the seller and consumer.

2. Neither any appeal has been filed by the complainant / the owner of the vehicle against order of exoneration of opposite party No. 2 / respondent No. 2 herein Honda Cars India Pvt. Ltd. from any liability nor that order has been challenged by the appellant / opposite party No. 1 the G. K. Cars Pvt. Ltd. in its memo of appeal. In the circumstances, the order of exoneration from any liability of the opposite No. 2 / respondent No. 2 herein has attained its finality.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant / respondent No. 1 purchased a Honda Jazz car model of 2016 for his personal and family use. Consideration amount of the car with registration and insurance premium, total Rs.9,20,000, was given to the opposite party No. 1 / appellant. The vehicle was bearing Chassis No. MAKGH776LF4003333 and Engine No. N15A11508941. Tax Invoice dated 29/03/2016 was issued by the opposite party No. 1 / appellant mentioning the chassis number, engine number and manufacturing year of the vehicle. Opposite party No. 1 sent the insurance cover note after 15 days and registration certificate of the vehicle after 3 months. From the registration certificate it revealed that by cheating and misrepresentation on the saying that the vehicle is of 2016 model, vehicle of 2015 model was sold to the complainant. On which the complainant contacted the opposite party No. 1. Then legal notice was also sent to the opposite parties, but nothing was done by the opposite parties, hence ultimately complaint was filed before the District Commission against the opposite party No. 1 seller and the manufacturer of the vehicle opposite No. 2 seeking direction to the opposite parties to provide Honda Jazz car 2016 model or the current model or in alternative for payment of amount received by them Rs.9,20,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amount, i.e. 29/03/2016 with Rs.50,000 as compensation for financial, physical and mental loss and Rs.10,000 as cost of litigation.

4. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply, by way of written statement, submitted that no cheating or misrepresentation was committed by them. In fact the vehicle sold to the complainant was of 2015 model and this fact was clearly informed to the complainant also at the time of sale of the vehicle. On account of some typographical error in the invoice the manufacturing year has been mentioned as 2016. Nothing was hidden from the complainant, nor any wrong information was given to sale the vehicle. Therefore, no relief is