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

Dated this the 18^th November 2016

PRESENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     :  HONBLE PRESIDENT

           SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                  : MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.235/2014

(Admitted on 28.06.2014)

Mrs. Monica A.Roadrigues,

W/o. Basil Vincent Rodrigues,

R/o. 3.13.1244, Jayashree Gate,

Near Carmel Monestry,

Kulshekar Post, Mangalore  5,

Represented by GPA holder/husband

Basil Vincent Rodrigues, 54 yrs;

S/o late W.S.C.Rodrigues.

                                                                   ….. COMPLAINANT

    (Advocate for the Complainant: In person)

VERSUS

1. M/s. Mandovi Motors Pvt Ltd.,

    A company having its office at

    Arivind Buidling, Balamatta Road,

    Mangalore  1,

   represented by its Managing Partner.

2. M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

    A company having its regd. Office at

    11^th Floor, Jeevan Prakash Bldg.,

    25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 1,

    Represented by its Managing Director.

                                                                                   ….....OPPOSITE PARTIES

           (Advocate for the Opposite Parties: MSKP)

           (Advocate for the Opposite Parties: Post)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HONBLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain reliefs. 

                The brief facts of the case are as under:

 The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Omni from opposite party No.1 with chassis No.1331637, Engine No.4438009 manufactured by opposite party No.2 in April 2012.  Opposite party No.1 by collecting additional charges got the vehicle registered and obtained insurance policy in complainant’s name with No.KA19/MC.5229.  At the time of sale opposite party No.1 represented the vehicle as of 2012 of model and even documents of registration depict the same.

          2. The complainant further contends that at the time of renewal of insurance policy in April 2014 when complainant approached opposite party No.1 the insurance agents informed complainant that the vehicle is of 2011 model and not 2012.  On verification through internet to the shock of complainant it was confirmed the vehicle as of 2011 model.  When complainant approached opposite party as to misrepresentation and fraud, opposite party tendered apology and offered Rs.10,000/ as price difference.  The opposite party has misuse the ignorance of complainant.  Hence seeks to reprimand opposite party Rs.1,00,000/ being difference in the market value of the brand new vehicle towards depreciation in the value of vehicle and towards mental agony.

II.   Opposite party No.1 further contended in the written version the complainant who approached on 17.4.2012 wanted vehicle urgently and immediately and on 18.4.2012 temporary registration was made and by mistake the year was made 2012.  After registration insurance and other formalities the vehicle was delivered to complainant on 19.4.2012.  After lapse of 24 months now the complainant was come with the stale claim.  The complaint lodged on 27.6.2014 is barred by his limitation. Hence seeks dismissal.

          2. Opposite party No.2 also filed a detailed objections contending mainly First U/s 24 (a) of C P Act it is barred by time.  Secondly the opposite party No.2 under invoice sold the vehicle to opposite party No.1 the under dealership agreement and there is no sale effected by opposite party No.2 to complainant.  The sale transaction is between opposite party No.1 and complainant.  The written opposite party No.2 also mentions to various case laws stating the reputed judgments are in its favour.

    3. Opposite party No.2 further denies misrepresentation made or fraud played on compliant by opposite party the relationship between opposite party No.1 & 2 are principal to principle basis.  The complaint is divide of merits and seeks dismissal. 

4.    In support of the above complainant Mr. Vincent Rodrigues filed affidavit evidence as Cw1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C5 detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Shashidhar.T, A.G.M, (Rw1) also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

                       Point No. (i): Affirmative

                      Point No. (ii): Affirmative

                     Point No. (iii): As per the final order.          

                                                                                        REASONS

IV.      POINTS No. (i) & (ii):  The fact that the complainant purchased vehicle in question from opposite party No.1 on 19.4.2012 and that as per the documents including R.C and sales certificates issued by opposite party No.1 the vehicle is represented by opposite party No.1 as of 2012 model.  It can also be very well seen that opposite party No.1 in the written version in so many words admits that the vehicle is in fact of 2011 model and stated it was a mistake in representing as of 2012 model.  However the vendor opposite party No.1 in our considered view cannot escape from responsible by saying it was an error that too while selling a product for a sum of Rs. 2,46,184.  Hence in our considered view there is misrepresentation and unfair trade practice by opposite party No.1 in selling the product to complainant. 

          2. The complainant seeks a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ towards the difference and towards mental agony. However the exact difference in amount of the 2011 model and of 2012 model is not brought to our notice by either of the parties.  But 15% depreciation is an agreed norm while renewing an insurance policy. 15% of Rs.2,46,184, comes to Rs.36,927/Towards mental agony and litigation expenses and another 15,000/ and a total sum of Rs. 51,927/.  Thus in our view awarding a compensation of Rs. 51,927 is justified.

          3. In respect of opposite party No.2 is concerned it is not necessary to discuss in length the case put forth by opposite party No.2 in the written version.  Suffice to mention that the sale of the vehicle to complainant was made and invoice as well as sale certificate issued and the registration of the vehicle document was got done by opposite party No.1 only.  The second opponent is not at all involved in this.  Hence we are of the view complaint against opposite party No.2 is not at all maintainable.  Hence the complaint against opposite party No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

4.  In respect of the claim of limitation raised by the opponents is concerned it is not the case of opponents that complainant made known the model as of 2011 at the time of purchase of the vehicle.  The contention raised by the complainant that she came to know about the vehicle sold to her of 2011 model when the she approached opposite party No.1 for renewal of the insurance policy of the vehicle in April 2014 and when the people of the insurance company informed that the vehicle is of 2011 model.  Hence the complaint filed from the said date in 2014 is within time as the complaint was filed on 27.6.2014. 

     5. It is not necessary to mention the relationship of consumer i.e. the complainant as buyer and opposite party No.1 the vendor as service provider with opposite party No.1 making misrepresentation there is relationship of consumer and service provider and a consumer dispute permitting this forum exercise jurisdiction.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative in respect of the opposite party No.1 only.  Similarly we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative in respect of opposite party No.1 only.

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

      The petition is partly allowed.   The opponent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.51,927/ (Rupees Fifty One thousand Nine hundred Twenty Seven only) with interest  at the rate of 8% from the date of notice till the date of payment.  Opposite party No.1 is granted 30 days time for making payment.

     Complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

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

(Page No.1 to 7 Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18^th November 2016)

                                 ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Vincent Rodrigues

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: General Power of Attorney dated 23.06.2014

Ex.C2: Card Registration Certificate of KA.19/MC.5229

Ex.C3: Tax Invoice dated 18.04.2012 with Delivery Challan issued by 1^st Opposite party

Ex.C4: O/c of letter dated 6.05.2014 addressed to 1^st Opposite party

Ex.C5: E mail correspondence printout copies (5 sheets)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1:  Mr. Shashidhar T, A.G.M, Sales and Marketing

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated:  18.11.2016                                         PRESIDENT