STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/2/2025 (Against the Order dated 4th November 2024 in Complaint DC/44/CC/654/2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh district commission)

RAKESH RAI PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O SH. RAM PRAKASH R/O H.NO. 3639, SECTOR 23-D, CHANDIGARH.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SUKHBIR MOTORS PRESENT ADDRESS - 1049, SECTOR 82, JLPL, MOHALI THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

INDERJEET SINGH (Advocate)

DATED: 17/12/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench

Appeal No.	:	02 of 2025
Date of Institution	:	27.12.2024
Date of Decision	:	17.12.2025

Rakesh Rai S/o Sh. Ram Prakash R/o H. No.3639, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

--Appellant V e r s u s Sukhbir Motors, 1049, Sector 82, JLPL, Mohali through its proprietor/ partner …Respondent Appeal against the order dated 04.11.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.654/2022.

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI,PRESIDENT MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER For the appellant : Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate alongwith Sh.Rakesh Rai, appellant in person For the respondent : Ex-parte vide order dated 04.11.2025 PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.11.2024, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), whereby consumer complaint (CC/654/2022)

filed by the complainant/appellant was dismissed, being devoid of merit.

2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant that he purchased an old car make Audi Q3 of 2012 model from the owner of Jalandhar Sweets, Sector 23, Chandigarh vide affidavit Annexure C-1 and the registration of the same was also got registered in the name of the complainant and a copy of Registration Certificate is annexed as Annexure C-2. The complainant wanted to get the said car serviced as annual service of the same was due and also wanted to get few parts inspected and replaced including brakes pads, front rotors. In order to get the said work done, he visited the workshop of the Opposite party and at that time the Opposite party had assured the complainant that genuine parts of the car like Audi, BMW and other luxury cars are kept and it could provide regular service and replacement of parts, if any. Accordingly on the persuasion/assurance of the Opposite party, the complainant handed over the above said car to the Opposite party for its service and repair of the faulty parts by way of replacement etc. It was alleged that after 4 days, the complainant received a call from the Opposite party informing him that the vehicle had been fully repaired and was ready for delivery. On this, the complainant had taken the said car from the Opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.1,12,000/-. The complainant asked the Opposite party for the bill of the said amount but the same was not provided by the Opposite party. However, later on when the complainant insisted for the said bill, the Opposite party handed over copy of the same, which is Annexure C-3. Thereafter, when the complainant started plying the said car as per his normal use, it was noticed that some noise was coming from the brakes pads and the flying wheel was also seemed to be giving some trouble and the car was not running smoothly. After observing these defects in the car, the complainant got the same inspected and diagnosed from an authorized Audi service centre at Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant was shocked to know that the diesel filter needed to be replaced and also flying wheel was not working properly as the same was making noise and the underbody engine sheet was also not there due to which flywheel was requir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document