BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE               

Dated this the 24^thDecember 2016

PRESENT

     SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D   : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

     SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                 : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.345/2013

(Admitted on 18.12.2013)

Mr. N.S. Bhat,

S/o N.M. Bhat,

Aged about 60 years,

R/at Undila House,

Kodimbala Post & Village,

PuttureTq, D.K.

                                                     ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri SD)

VERSUS

1. Managing Director,

    Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd,

    PalamGargaon Road,

    Gurgaon 122015.

2. Manager,

    M/s Bharath Auto Cars Pvt Ltd.,

    Railway Station Road, Harady,

    Puttur, D.K

3. Regional Transport Office,

Bannur,

Puttur, D.K.

                                                                       ….....OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Party No.1:Ex parte)

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri. VVS)

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3: Sri. GKS)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain relief opposite party to refund Rs.6,28,653/ with 12% interest from 30.01.2013 till payment, to pay Rs.1,00,000/ compensation, from 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs.50,000/ as compensation and to pay 50,000/ as expenses.

     2.  In support of the above complainant Mr.N S Bhatfiled affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C15 detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr.Denis Gonsalves(Rw1)Sales Manager also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.R1 to R3 detailed in the annexure here below.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

We have perused the complainant and the Opposite parties pleadings. This dispute is pertaining to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the Opposite parties in selling the MARUTI DESIRE VDI diesel model. The complainant alleges that the complainant while booking the car in the month of Nov 2011 requested the opposite party no 2 to deliver the 2013 manufactured car but Opposite party no 2 delivered the vehicle manufactured in the year 2012 by taking the price of 2013 model vehicle. On demanding the exchange the Opposite parties not responding properly hence there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The Opposite party no 1 contends that he is only manufacturer of the vehicle there is no contractual obligation between the opposite party no 1 and the complainant since the vehicle sold by the opposite party no 2 and there is no complaint with regard to quality of the vehicle hence they are not liable to the complainant for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The opposite party no 3 is the RTO Puttur and claims they are not service providers as per Consumer Protection Act 1986 and they are the only registering authorities and register the vehicle as per documents submitted. In this circumstances we in resolving this dispute deem fit to consider the following

POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION

On close scrutiny of the documents produced and the evidence adduced we after considering facts of the case the admitted facts are, the purchase of the MARUTI  DESIRE VDI car by the complainant from the opposite party no 2 after paying due consideration, the delivery of the vehicle and the manufacturing year of the vehicle is 2012, the RC book entry is manufacturing month and year mentioned as Jan, 2013. However it is denied that the complainant had requested for the vehicle manufactured in the year 2013 to be delivered, the collecting of extra charges based on the model from the complainant, and the promise by the opposite party no 2 to deliver the 2013 manufacture vehicle. These being the summarized facts of dispute we consider following points for adjudication.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 1986?
2. Whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite parties?
3. Whether the complaint is entitled for the relief prayed for?
4. What order?

On careful examination of the documents produced and the evidence led by the parties we heard the parties and answered the above points as

1. In the affirmative against opposite party no 1 & opposite party no 2.
2. In the negative.
3. In the negative.
4. As per delivered order.

REASON

POINT NO 1: The complainant produced the EX C1 and C2 which proves the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from the opposite party no 2 and the opposite party no 1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle. As such we hold the opposite party no 1 and 2 are the manufacturer and the seller of the vehicle and complainant is the consumer. As far as the opposite party no 3 is concern it is the statutory body and works as per law and register the vehicle as per application and documents produced. The opposite party no 3 also produced our Honorable High court order in Appeal No 982/1997 dated 14.07.2000 STATE OF KARNATAKA by A.R.T.O PUTTUR v. SRI SEETHARAMA MUNIYANI in which it is held the complainant is not a consumer of the appellant/Opposite party. Hence relying the said decision we hold the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party no 3 hence we answered the point no 1 as the affirmative against opposite party no 1 & opposite party no 2.

POINT NO 2 &3: The complainant’s case is he has requested for the delivery of 2013 manufacture vehicle but the Opposite party no 2 delivered the 2012 manufactured vehicle.  The complainant had booked the vehicle on 27.11.2012 as per booking form EX R1. We do not find any specific request by the complainant in the application to deliver the 2013 manufacture vehicle. However the complainant claims he has requested orally. The main ground of the complainant is the RC book issued by the opposite party no 3 stated as 2013 manufacture vehicle, the insurance policy and the hypothecation document states the model as 2012. On this discrepancy he argues he has been deceived by the opposite party no 2 by delivering the 2012 manufactured vehicle in place of 2013 manufacture vehicle. Apart from this contention there is no any documents or evidence to prove that the complainant had asked for the 2013 manufacture vehicle and the opposite party no 2 delivered the 2012 manufacture vehicle.

2.  We laid our hand on the documents submitted to the RTO for Registration of the disputed vehicle on undisputed point of time. The opposite party no 3 submits in their version that they have registered the vehicle on the basis of the documents produced by the complainant such as

1 The application in Form no 20,

2 The sale letter in Form no 21,

3 From no 22 issued by the MaruthiSuzaki,

4 Invoice no VSL 12000543 dated 30.01.2013 issued by the Bharath Auto Cars Ltd. Etc,.

3.  Among these documents Form no 20 is produced by the complainant herein is,  submitted by the complainant to the RTO for registration of the vehicle. It is signed by the complainant and the month and year of manufacturing stated to be 2012. The result is the complainant himself applied for the registration of the vehicle by declaring the vehicle is of the 2012 manufactured vehicle. The complainant knows that the vehicle purchase by him is of the 2012 manufactured vehicle and applied for the registration of the vehicle as the 2012 manufactured vehicle. The question is when the complainant requested for the 2013 manufacture vehicle, how he applied for the registration of the 2012 manufactured vehicle. We do not understand how he can blame the opposite party no 2 for selling the vehicle the 2012 manufactured vehicle and unfair trade practice. He knows it before applying for the registration,  that his vehicle is of the 2012 manufactured vehicle. His claim that the opposite party no 2 committed unfair trade practice is not acceptable. We observed the opposite party no 3 also produced the copy of the From no 20 produced by the complainant for registering the vehicle. The opposite party no 3 also produced the copy of the Form no 21 issued by the opposite party no 2. In this document we find the month and year of manufacture is written as Jan 2013. However the opposite party no 2 accepted the mistake and submits it is typographical mistake. The point is the RTO Puttur also committed a mistake by not comparing the Form no 21 with the form no 20 with regard to month and year of manufacture and depending on the From no 21 alone, whereas it is From no 20 the application given by the complainant for the registration of the vehicle is primary documents and the From no 21 is the enclosure for From no 20. However this error will not give anything more to the complainant except applying for the RTO for correction in the RC book. There is no any documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence or presumption evidence to say that the complainant had requested for the 2013 vehicle when he had booked the vehicle on 27.11.2012. So the vehicle delivered is matches with the Chassis no of the vehicle which is sold through invoice and delivered. The complainant has no dispute with regard to chassis number of the vehicle or defect in the vehicle or after sale service deficiency. Admittedly the other records like the insurance policy and the hypothecation letter will reveal the model as the 2012 manufactured vehicle.  The typographical mistake in Form no 21 is condone worth as it is not prejudiced the complainant where as it is benefited, as the RC reflected latest model.   Hence we have no constraint to go with the opposite party contention that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant has not proved his case and the answer to the point no 2 in the negative and in result the point no 3 also in the negative.

4.   We are of the opinion that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious without any fore thought. It is crystal clear from the document From No 20 that the delivery of the 2012 manufactured vehicle is within knowledge before applying for the RC and in spite misused the typographical error for enriching himself by giving unnecessary trouble for the Opposite parties, we consider the Sec.26 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is attracted and fit case for punishing the frivolous complainants. Hence the opposite parties are entitled for the compensatory cost of Rs 2000/ each.

POINT NO 4: In the light of above adjudication of points we pass the following

ORDER

     The complaint is dismissed with compensatory cost. The complainant shall pay an amount of  Rs 2000/ (Rupees Two thousand only) to each of the Opposite parties as compensation for vexatious prosecution. 

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 9 directly typed by member revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th December 2016)

             MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

(SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR)         (SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum              D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. N S Bhat

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1:30.01.2013  :Original tax invoice issued by 2^nd O.P

Ex C2:01.02.2013  :Original delivery challan issued by 2^nd O.P

Ex C3:Copy of the R.C issued by 3^rd O.P

Ex.C4:01.02.2013  : B  Register Extract issued by 3^rd O.P

Ex.C5: 29.01.2013  : Copy of the insurance Policy

Ex.C6:                   : Form No.20 issued by 3^rd O.P

Ex.C7: 01.02.2013  : Life time tax paid receipt

Ex.C8: 03.05.2013  : O/c of letter addressed by the complainant to the 2^nd O.P

Ex.C9: 07.05.2013  : Postal Acknowledgement

Ex.C10: 17.06.2013 : O/c of letter addressed by the complainant to the 2^nd O.P

 Ex.C11: 20.06.2013  : Postal Acknowledgement

Ex.C12: 10.10.2013  : O/c regd notice

Ex.C13: 11.10.2013  : Postal acknowledgement of 3^rd O.P

Ex.C14:                   : Postal acknowledgement of 2^nd O.P

Ex.C15:                   : Postal acknowledgement of 1^st O.P

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1:  Mr. Denis Gonsalves, Sales Manager

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1:Carbon copy of order booking/commitment checklist

Ex.R2: The price of the vehicle as on 14.12.2012

Ex.R3: The price of the vehicle as on 21.1.2013

Dated:  24.12.2016                                         MEMBER