ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complaint for seeking to replace the new model vehicle , to hand over the registration certificate and insurance policy of the vehicle, compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can b e briefly summarized as follows: The complainant for his own use approached on 2.4.2008 the opp.parties 1 and 2 to purchase a two wheeler of Hero Honda Super Splendor New vehicle. The complainant demanded a new vehicle and the 2nd opp.party assured that a new vehicle will be delivered and the complainant on assurance remitted the required amount of Rs.43,500/- on arranging finance. On 2.4.2008 the vehicle received to the complainant and on perusing the records given by the opp.parties 1 and 2 the complainant could understand that the vehicle was of old model with the manufacturing date as August 2007. The act done by the opp.parties 1 and 2 is unfair trade practice with the intention to deceive the complainant to effect sale of the old model 2007 vehicle to the complainant. The complainant could find some rust in the nut and bolt and on the complaint made by the complainant the 2nd opp.party was inclined to remove the same with new nut and bolt. The unfair method relied by the opp.parties 1 and 2 caused much mental agony and pain to the complainant and caused loss to the complainant. The act of the opp.parties is unfair trade practice and liable to be punished. The opp.parties 1 and 2 are of with the collusion with the 3rd opp.party who manufactured the vehicle and it is with the intention to sell out the old vehicles of the 3rd opp.party that all the opp.parties acted together and hence the opp.parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complaint. The opp.arty 2 and 3 are filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. On 2.4.2008 the complainant purchased a Hero Honda Super Splendor Motor Cycle from the 1st opp.party. The averment that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was of old modal with manufacturing date as August, 2007is false. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 2.4.2008 along with the temporary registration certificate issued by the registering authority. The engine number, chassis number, year of manufacture, date of registration and delivery etc were mentioned in the temporary registration certificate. The opp.parties 1 and 2 is unfair trade practice with the intension to deceive the complainant to effect sale of the old modal 2007 vehicle to the complainant is also false. The opp.parties did not cause any sort of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice to the complainant as alleged in the complaint so also the averment that , at the time of delivery of the vehicle the complainant could find some rest in the nut and bolt and on the complaint made by him the 2nd opp.party was inclined to remove the same with new nut and bolt are also false. On perusing the records issued from the Kottarakkara JRTO the complainant come to know the date of manufacturing of the vehicle as August, 2000 are false. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. The 3rd opp.party filed version, contending, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint admittedly the transaction alleged has taken place only between the complainant and opp.parties 1 and 2. So there is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opp.party is legally entitled to be completely exonerated from any liability. The 3rd opp.party is absolutely an unnecessary party to this proceedings and prays that this Honourable Forum may be pleased to sueo motu delete this opp.party from the party array. The complaint as against this opp.party is an experimental litigation and without any bonafides, and is liable to be dismissed in limine, as against this opp.party. This opp.party has not done any act or deed in collusion with the opp.parties 1 and 2 as alleged This opp.party is not jointly or severally liable to compensate of pay any cost of this proceeding to the complainant. This opp.party respectfully submits that the company being the manufacturer of Hero Honda Motorcycles in the country, on receipt of requisition for motor bikes from their dealers, subject to availability supplies the respective dealers with the required numbers of motor cycles. In accordance with the requirement of the 1st and 2nd opp.party that this opp.party has supplied motorcycles to them. The 3rd opp.party is completely ignorant of the motorcycles that were sold or retained by the opp.parties 1 and 2 to her than for the returns submitted by them. The 3rd opp.party being the manufacturer can befastened with liability only in respect of any manufacturing defect as per the terms and conditions in the owner’s manual and not for redressal of any grievance as alleged in the complaint, which is a purely an inter party dispute between the complainant and opp.parties 1 and 2.. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the 3rd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts. P1 to P4 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.parties POINTS: Complainant’s case is that he booked a New Model Hero Honda Two wheeler from the opp.parties 1 and 2 on 2.4.2008, but the opp.parties 1 and 2 delivered an old model vehicle. Opp.party 1 and 2 ‘s contention is that it is impossible to sell the vehicles on the date of manufacture itself. It will take some time for transportation and distribution to the local dealers and thereafter to the buyer. Learned counsel for the complainant is argued that Ext.P3 sale certificate clearly indicate the endorsement that a Hero Honda Spelender New vehicle hasten delivered by the opp.parties. According to the learned counsel of opp.parties1 and 2 that at the time of delivery of the vehicle they have given temporary registration certificate to the complainant. The engine number, chassis number, year of manufacture, date of registration delivery etc were mentioned in the temporary registration. But the opp.parties 1 and 2 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their contentions. Ext.P2 and P3 clearly shows that the model of vehicle is August 2007. There is no dispute that the date of delivery is on 5.4.2008. According to opp.parties 1 and 2 the complainant has no case that the vehicle is a used one. But it is obvious from the exhibits that opp.parties 1 and 2 sold an old model vehicle. Through Ext.P2 and P3 complainant proved his case. As far as opp.party 3 is covered they have not done any act or deed in collusion with the opp.parties 1 and 2 . Hence 3rd opp.party has no liability with this transaction By considering the entire evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service from the side of opp.parties 1 and 2 by selling an old model vehicle to the complainant. In the result the complaint is allowed. Opp.parties 1 and 2are directed to give Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation. Opp.parties 1 and 2 are also directed to give Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order, Dated this the 21ST day of July, 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Benny List of documents for the complainant P1. – Authorisation P2. – R.C. Book P3. – Sales certificate P4. – Retail Invoice | 
