This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay  a sum of `1 lakh as compensation or else to pay the amount collected by the opposite party from the complainant with interest by taking back the defective vehicle.

  The facts of  the complainant’s case is that in the month of June 2009 complainant approached the shop room of 1^st opposite party for the purchase of a Tata ACE HT goods Vehicle and enquired about its value and other specifications. On that basis on 29.6.2009 complainant inspected the Tata ACE HT goods vehicle from the 1^st opposite party’s shop and obtained a quotation of the said vehicle and paid an advance amount of `45,000 to 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party. At that time 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party agreed to deliver the vehicle with in 10 days after building the body of the vehicle from the show room of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party at Kozhikode and the vehicle will be delivered to the complainant after completing registration formalities. Complainant further alleges that there was some offers from 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party  to give the tray of the goods vehicle free of cost and also to deduct 5000  from the value of the vehicle  if the complaint produce the RC of another vehicle. There after on 22.7.09 complaint paid `2,88,000 to 1^st opposite party. Altogether `3,33,000 was collected by the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party from the complainant. But the delivery of the vehicle was delayed by 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party stating that it can only be done after clearing the registration formalities. On 29.7.09 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party delivered the vehicle to the complainant. But the same was not the vehicle shown by 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party to the complainant earlier. When complaint asked about the same 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party evaded by saying that there is not much difference between them. There after complainant came to know that the body built on his vehicle is not a company made one and the same was constructed by using local materials. Even though complainant questioned about the same, the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party evaded without saying any reply. Even after registration of the vehicle the tray of the vehicle was not given to the complaint. The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party given only a cash receipt for `2,81,110. Even though complainant informed about the defect of the vehicle to 2^nd opposite party there was no proper reply. On 10.8.09 complainant issued a notice to opposite parties demanding compensation. But there was no reply from the opposite parties nor they paid any compensation. Hence complaint prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay a compensation of `1 lakh to the complaint or else to pay the amount collected by the opposite parties from the complainant with interest by taking back the vehicle.

         Pursuant to the complaint forum sent notice to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and filed their version denying the complaint’s allegations. The material facts submitted by 1^st opposite party in the version are as follows:

          1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant placed an order for the purchase of TATA ACE HT CAB Goods vehicle but he wanted the vehicle with a covered body. Since the company is supplying only the chassis with cabin complaint was advised to pay extra cost for providing covered body. Accordingly 1^st opposite party quoted `2,81,310 towards the value of the vehicle as per price list provided by the company. For builting the covered body it would take 1 month’s time. Hence 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party collected `45,000from the complaint at the time of placing order for building the covered body. The said amount was not received as advance booking amount of the vehicle. No further offers were made by 1^st opposite party to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party has not collected any excess amount from the complainant. 1s opposite party submitted that he had altogether collected `3,33,000 from the complainant. This amount was collected on the following basis.

i)                   price of the vehicle as per quotation and invoice  `2,81,310

ii)                 Price for the covered body                                     `45,000

iii)              Registratin and Tax as shown in the quotation       ` 6,700

                                Total                                                 `3,33,010            It is also admitted that the insurance premium amount  shown in the quotation was paid by the complainant himself.  1^st opposite party delivered the same brand of vehicle as booked by the complaint. No further offer was available to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Even after receipt of the notice 1^st opposite party intimated the real fact to the complaint. The complaint is being filed only on some misconception of fact by the complainant.     

2^nd opposite party also filed version in tune with the version of 1^st opposite party. It is admitted that 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicle purchased by the complainant. The vehicles manufactured by 2^nd opposite party were gone through stringent quality test and road trials and the vehicles are marketed only after approved by the automotive Research Association of India. 2^nd opposite party is also having dealer workshops which would dedicated to provide helpline to the customers. 2^nd opposite party submitted that all the averments made in the complaint are vague, baseless and motivated. Since the complainant has not claimed that the vehicle purchased by him is suffering from any manufacturing defect and deficiency of service was not being established the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Complainant will not come under the purview of a consumer under 2nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party is having no vicarious liability to the acts of 1^st opposite party. Hence 2^nd opposite party submits that there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party toward the complainant. 2^nd opposite party is not liable to ay any compensation as claimed in the complaint.

On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration:

       1. Whether the complaint’s vehicle is having manufacturing

           or material defects which would fasten liability upon the

            opposite parties?

2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of

   opposite parties towards the complainant?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get

     any compensation as    claimed in the complaint?

4. Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A15 marked on the side of complainant. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ext.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of  opposite arty. Expert commissioner was examined as DW2 and Ext.C1 marked.

Issue Nos. 1 to 4

         It is the admitted case that complaint approached 1^st opposite

 party on 29.6.2009 and obtained quotation for the purchase of a TATA ACE HT Goods vehicle. The quotation issued by 1^st opposite party on 29.6.2009 is produced and marked as Ext.A1. Complainant raised several allegation which vary from place to place.Ex.A5 is the copy of the notice issued by the complainant on 10.8.09 to the opposite party’s demanding compensation. In the notice the material allegation raised are as follows:

1. h­n X¶-t¸mÄ Fs¶ ImWn¨ {]Im-c-ap-ff h­n-bà X¶-Xv.
2. _nÃv 2.,81-.,110 cq] am{X-amWv X¶n-«p-f-f-Xp.
3. Hm^-dp-IÄ X¶n-Ã.
4. h­n-bpsS anäÀhbÀ  disconnect sNbvXp h­n HmSn-¨-Xmbn sXfn-ªp.
5. h­n-bpsS ]pd-In-tes¯ tUmÀ h­n HmSp-t¼mÄ X\nsb Xpd¶p t]mIp¶ Ah-Ø-bn-em-bn-cp-¶p.

          Through Ext.A5 notice complainant raised his grievance at the first instance. All these complaints are not seen mentioned in the complaint. From the very reading of the allegations raised in the notice it can see that there is no basis for the above complaints. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove these allegations.

     The first allegation is that  h­n X¶-t¸mÄ Fs¶ ImWn¨ {]Im-c-ap-ff h­n-bà X¶-Xv.. If that be so the complainant would not have taken delivery of the vehicle. As per Ext.A1 quotation complainant booked one TATA ACE CAB chassis. Which is the vehicle shown to the complainant from the show room of 1^st opposite arty is not seen mentioned anywhere in the complaint. The complainant with out any hesitation taken delivery of the vehicle. After registering the vehicle in his name he plyed the same. There after raising such a sort of allegation is having no veracity at all. The 2^nd allegation is also not true and correct. The receipt for `2,82,110 is produced and marked as ext.A4. It is the amount paid towards the value of the vehicle only. As per complaint, complainant paid total sum of `3,33,000 to 1^st opposite party. Ext.A2 and A3 covers the said payments.

     Regarding offers made by 1^st opposite party complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the same. No scrap of paper is produced to prove that such and such offers are available to the complainant at the time of purchasing the vehicle. Hence there is no merit in such demands.

     The fourth allegation can be found only in the  notice issued by the complainant to opposite party. In the complaint or in the chief affidavit complaint has not mentioned about such an allegation. After taking delivery of the vehicle complainant used the same for his personal purpose and raising such a complaint there after is having no base at all.

     The 5^th allegation mentioned in the notice is also not mentioned in the complaint. When the expert commissioner who is an automobile Engineer inspected the vehicle the complainant has not pointed out such a defect to the notice of the commissioner. The commissioner specifically stated that the body of he vehicle is fully closed type and doors are provided in the rear side metal sheet is used for making the body. From this attitude of the complainant it is very clear that the above allegation is also a bogus one.

     The material allegation raised in the complaint are same what different from what is mentioned in Ext.A5 notice. Apart from the allegation mentioned in the notice the major defect mentioned in the complaint are as follows: The 1^st opposite party received `45,000 on 29.6.09 towards the advance for the goods vehicle.Complainant himself admitted in Para 10 of the complaint “H¶mT FXr-I£n Ah-cpsS tImgn-t¡m-Sp-ff tjmdq-an \n¶mWv t_mUn \nÀ½n-¡p-¶-sX¶p ]cm-Xn-¡m-cs\ hni-z-kn-¸n-¨n-cp-¶p. In Ext.A1 it is specifically mentioned that `45,000 was charged towards body work of the vehicle. But when adducing evidence complainant is pretending ignorance about these facts. He stated during cross examination “`45,000 cq] h­n-bpsS chassis\p body build sN¿m-\p-ff Nne-hm-sW¶p ]d-ª. icn-bÃ. From these averments it is very clear that complaint is raising false allegations in order to create a case. It is further stated in the complaint that “]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ h­n deliversNbvX-t¸mÄ I¼-\n-bpsS  body Aà provide sNbvX-sX¶p a\-Ên-embn. AbXp local km[-\-§Ä Db-tbm-Kn-¨mWv h­n  ]Wn-X-sX¶p a\-Ên-embn”. From the very reading of the complaint itself it can found that 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is only delivering chassis of the vehicle with cabin. The cove red body is to be build in accordance with the need of the customers. The allegation of the complaint that the body of the vehicle was built by using local materials is not supported by any evidence. PW2, the expert commissioner has not reported any defect about the body of the vehicle. The specification for making the body  cannot be elucidated from the complainant. Hence the above allegation is also lacks material support of evidence. From the perusal of the complaint we cannot found any reason for the complainant to claim `1 lakh from the opposite parties.  

     While adducing evidence the complaint produced Ext.A11 to A15 which includes cash bills and other report to show that the alignment of the vehicle is not proper. The complaint alleges that the alignment of the vehicle was lost due to manufacturing defect of the vehicle. The said allegation is no where raised in the complaint or in the lawyer notice. PW2 in his report stated that, “during my inspection conducted a test drive and found the vehicle was moving left side.This show the wheel alignment was not proper resulting excess  tyre wear is happen”. In this aspect it is pertinent to note that the odometer reading noted by the Commissioner at the time of his inspection is 42854 kms. More over while cross examination of PW2 he categorically stated that “wheel alignment h­n  use sN¿p-t¼mÄ periodically sNt¿­ Imc-y-am-Wv. F{X Proper Bbn maintain sNbvXm-epT hml-\T Ipgn-bn hoWm wheel alignment\p XI-cm-dp-­m-Ip-T. 5þmT   \¼-dmbn Note sNbvX Imc-yT A§s\ kT`hn-¡m³ km[-y-X-bp­v km[m-cW Wheel alignment compliant Bbn  hcp-¶Xp show room \n¶p Cd-¡nb DSs\ Dff h­n¡v A§s\ ]cmXn Ds­-¦n-emWv”. Here the complainant plyed his vehicle for more than 42000 kms. Usually  drives will have to make periodical check about the alignment of the vehicle within 3000 kms and if there is loss of alignment balancing should be done to the wheels. After using the vehicle for more than 2 years the production of exhibits A11 to A15 are having no  relevancy at all.

     The complaint further raises some more bare allegations that due to lack of mudguard the engine of the vehicle is damaged. At no stretch of imagination we could not believe such allegation. PW2 reported that no mudguard is seen provided to the four wheels of the vehicle”.  While cross examination he admits that mudguard body¡v additionalBbn fit sNt¿-­XmWv . from Fhis it is very clear that mudguard is  on extra fitting to be done by the party himself  From the over all analysis of the  complainant’s case it can found that there is no depth in the allegations which would fasten liability upon the opposite parties. Most of the complaints are raised without any logic. Here the complainant miserably failed to prove any of the allegation raised in the complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the issues are found against the complainant.

     In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

                         Sd/-                   Sd/-

                   President                Member   

                                                     APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.         Proforma invoice issued by OP

A2 & A3.Temorary receipts issued by OP

A4.        Receipt issued by OP.

A5.       Copy of the notice sent to Ops

A6 & 8. Postal AD Card

A7 & 9. Postal receipts

A10.      Service book

A11.   Copy of the cash bill issued from Green land, wheel alignment

           centre

A12.   Cash bill issued from MRM Tyres & Alloy wheels dt.3.11.09

A13.    Vehicle alignment report dt.11.3.09

A14.   Cash bill dt.27.8.11 issued from Janatha procured Retreaders

A15.   Labour cash bill dt.29.8.11 issued from APCO Automobiles

 Exhibits for the opposite party:

B1.Copy of the circular issued by Transport Commissioner, Tvm dt.23.9.10

B2.Compliance report issued by the Deputy Director of Vehicles Research & Development Estt. Dt.11.2.09.

B3. Copy of the technical specifications issued by Tata Motors Ltd.

Exhibits for the court

C1.Commission report

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

PW2. Pramod.P

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.Siju.M.K

DW2. N.Karunanithi                         /forwarded by order/

                                                                      Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur