STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 05.08.2022 Reserved on : 10.04.2024 Date of Decision : 23.04.2024 ANR Motors Private Limited, Daburji, G.T. Road, Near Bye Pass, Amritsar, through its Director/Officer Incharge.

……..Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Gurnek Singh, Proprietor M/s Mark India, Building No.19, Adjoining Khalsa Post Office, Amritsar. …..Respondent/Complainant Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala, Camp Court at Amritsar in RBT/C.C. No.69 of 2018.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Present:-

For the Appellant : Sh. K.P. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : None

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The Appellant/OP i.e. ANR Morots Private Limited, through its Director/Office Incharge has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) being aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala Camp Court at Amritsar in RBT/C.C. No.69 of 2018 whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant had been partly allowed by issuing direction to the OP to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment as well as towards litigation expenses. The said order was ordered to be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant in the Complaint filed before the District Commission which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that he had purchased one car Marka Innova Crysta 2.4 G package, 8 seater against invoice No.INV170000510 dated 19.06.2017 for an amount of Rs.15,39,900/-. It was purchased in the name of Firm but it was used for his personal use. The car was purchased to earn his livelihood. After purchasing the said car, the Complainant on receiving the Registration Certificate of the car, came to know that the model of the car was of December 2016 whereas it was purchased in the year 2017. The manufacturing of the car was of the year 2016. The OP had sold the old model car by concealing this material fact which was a case of ‘unfair trade practice’ as the model was of the year 2016 but it was projected to be a model of the year 2017. The complaint was filed with the following prayer :-

“1) The OP may be directed to pay Rs.4 lacs as compensation for harassment and mental tension.

2) To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3) Any other relief to which the Complainant is found entitled.”

3. Upon issuing notice of the Complaint, the OP had appeared and filed written statement wherein certain preliminary objections were raised stating therein that the Complainant was not consumer qua to OP as the car was purchased in the name of Firm. Further it was mentioned that the Complaint was not maintainable as no cause of action had arisen to file the Complaint. The Complainant has no locus standi to file the Complaint. On merits, the averments made in the Complaint were denied and it was further submitted that certain material facts were concealed and the Complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.

4. The Complainant in support of his claim had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, the copy of the R.C. Ex.C-2, the copy of the sale invoice Ex.C-3, the copy of the provisional RC Ex.C-4, the copy of the receipt of fee Ex.C-5 and thereafter the evidence was closed. Similarly, the OP had also tendered into evidence the affidavit of General Manager Finance Ex.OP-1/A and thereafter the evidence w