National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member, held that,
“…selling a second-hand car, in place of a new car, after accepting the full consideration price for a new car, inter alia constitutes ‘unfair trade practice’ under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act.”
Revision Petition was instituted under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 impugning the State Commission’s Order.
Short point in the present case was the delivery of a second-hand car, instead of a new car, by the OPs to the Complainant, after obtaining the full consideration price of a new car.
State Commission determined that the District Forum was correct in concluding that a second-hand car was delivered to the complainant instead of a new one. Further, it was also determined that the compensation awarded by the District Forum was just and equitable.
State Commission’s Order:
“OPs/respondents refuted the allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint and averred that at the time of Chhattisgarh Rajyotsav Fair, the vehicle was booked by Hardeep Singh Hora, on payment of Rs.10,000/-. But, later on, no amount was paid by that person and the vehicle was never delivered to Hardeep Singh Hora and so it remained a branch new vehicle and it was sold to the complainant. As such it was not an old or secondhand vehicle and so no amount was payable to the complainant as compensation.”
Bench noted from the examination made by two fora below, after obtaining the total consideration price of new car, a second-hand car, instead of a new car, was delivered by the OPs to the Complainant.
Commission remarked that the present case revolved around unfair trade practice and stated that:
Factum of selling a second-hand car, in place of a new car, after accepting the full consideration price for a new car, inter alia constitutes ‘unfair trade practice’ (“- – unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice – -”) within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of the Act 1986.
Hence, the district forum’s order which was upheld by the State Commission was sustained. [Shashank Shah v. Gurjeet Singh Maan, 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 171, decided on 01-04-2021]
Advocates before the Commission:
For the petitioner: Mr Manish Kumar, Advocate with Mr Piyush Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr Kaushik Mishra, Advocate
