SIKAND & COMPANY Vs. GULSHAN NANDA
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SIKAND AND COMPANY
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMAR GOEL -
(1.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent No. 1 had purchased SFC 709 Tipper from the appellant. He had approached the appellants in December, 2006. As body built Tipper was not available, therefore, respondent No. 1 was informed in this behalf. Said respondent was informed by the appellant that SFC 709 Tipper Cab can be provided after fabrication of Tipper body on it. It was respondent No. 1 who had to bear the cost of load body.
(2.) IN this background, the fact remains that on 12.2.2007 the appellant sold the SFC 702 with load body Tipper for Rs. 7,45,000.
(3.) WHEN he took the vehicle for getting it registered, it was not registered as the vehicle was not having chassis number At the time of hearing, it was not disputed on behalf of the parties that untill the vehicle was having engine number and chassis number, Registering and Licensing Authority would not register it and authority competent to pass the same would not accept it for passing.
When the vehicle was neither passed nor could be registered, respondent No.1 filed Complaint No. 49/2007. It came up for consideration before the District Forum below. It has been allowed and appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 50,000 to respondent No. 1 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 5.4.2007 with costs of Rs. 2,000. So far as respondents 2 and 3 before us in this appeal are concerned, they were exonerated.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.