1.      This Order shall decide both the First Appeals arising out from the impugned Order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the learned Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in CC No.24 of 2017 whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint.

2.      As per report of the Registry, there is delay of 44 days in filing the First Appeal No.710 of 2022 and 86 days in filing FA No.928 of 2022. For the reasons stated in the IA Nos.9093 and 11498 of 2022 filed in both the Appeals respectively, the delay is condoned.

3.      For Convenience, the parties in the matter are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before State Commission. ‘Amit Anjani Poddar’ is the ‘Complainant’. While M/s. Ramani Cars(P) Ltd. is referred to as ‘OP-1 & 2’ and ‘Volkswagen India (P) Ltd.’ is referred as ‘OP-3’. ‘Volkswagen Group Sales India (P) Ltd.’ is referred as ‘OP-4’.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 03.09.2016 he booked a new Volkswagen Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 AT car for Rs.14,50,000, inclusive of all charges and requested delivery on 08.09.2016. OP-1 informed him that the car was not in stock but could be shipped from OP-2. He paid Rs.50,000 as advance and the balance Rs.14,00,000 was paid on 08.09.2016. The car delivered had already run 273 KM and was previously invoiced on 30.06.2016. The complainant was assured all commitments would be fulfilled within 30 days. But he discovered that the car was a second-hand, which was returned by another customer. Despite assurances, he faced delays and issues in registration and fulfilment of promises. He issued a legal notice and filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking replacement of the car or refund along with compensation and costs.

5.      OP-1 & 2, in their written version before the State Commission admitted the booking but denied the inclusion of all charges in the amount. They contended that the complainant was informed about the car's availability and agreed to take a previously booked car. They vehemently denied selling a second-hand car and asserted that the complainant inspected and accepted the car voluntarily. He did not cooperate with the registration process and provided false information. OP-3, in its Written Version stated they are the manufacturer and do not sell cars directly, asserting non-involvement in the case. OP-4 in reply claimed that there is no privity of contract with the complainant and denied liability for any service deficiencies and asserted that the selling dealer is responsible for all commitments and transactions.

6.      The learned State Commission, vide Order dated 29.04.2022 allowed the complaint with the following Order: -

“14.      In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to deliver a new Vento Highline Diesel Car with all accessories inclusive of all taxes, cut mat, full mat and Mud flap, Full Teflon coating, car cover, by paying necessary taxes, registration charges, RTO expenses and Road Taxes, with full insurance with zero depredation of bumper to bumper with delivery at Erode

OR

    To refund a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- towards the cost of the car along with 9% interest from the date of payment till realisation.

The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with cost of Rs.5,000/-, Time for payment one month, failing which the amount ordered as compensation shall carry interest @9% p.a., from the date of default, till realisation.”

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OP4-Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Ltd. filed Appeal No.710 of 2022 praying for:

a) Allow the present Appeal;

b) Set aside the Impugned Order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the State Commission in Consumer Complaint No.24 of 2017;

c) Pass such order and further orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

8.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OP-1&2 filed the Appeal no.928 of 2022 with the following prayer:

a) Allow the present First Appeal and Order and set aside the Final Order and Judgement dated 29.04.2022 passed by the State Commission, Chennai in C.C. No. 24/2017.

b) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interest of justice..”

9.      The Appellant/OP-4 in Appeal No. 710 of 2022 raised mainly the following:

A. The Complainant/ Respondent No. 1 sought to book a vehicle on 03.09.2016 at Erode and wanted delivery on 08.09.2016 for his son's birthday. Due to time constraint, he was offered a car that was already invoiced but located in Salem. He accepted this offer, paid the balance on 07.09.2016, inspected the vehicle on 08.09.2016 and took delivery without any reservations. He raised concerns about car registration at Erode on 02.10.2016 and claimed that it was second-hand. It was to pressurise them to pay late Regn fee at Erode RTO.

B. While the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish relevant facts the same was not discharged, the undue burden was placed on them to prove the car was new, contrary to established principles. The claim that the car had 283 KM on odometer was false. They provided gate passes showing 103 KM. The State Commission’s suspicion that it was used by another person before delivery to complainant was based on conjectures with no evidence and without considering the records that showed him that he was informed about the prior invoicing and delivery arrangements.

C.  The transaction was sale of motor vehicle under a valid contract, not a service-related issue. Inspection and delivery of the car and its papers were completed satisfactorily.

D. He was informed about the vehicle's prior invoicing and agreed to take delivery for his son’s birthday, knowing all details. Permanent Regn at Erode was delayed due to his non-cooperation as necessary documents and signatures were not provided.

E. Allegation that the car being second-hand and driven 273 km were false and motivated to shift the liability of the delayed registration fee on them.

F.  The sale contract and its terms were fulfilled by the Appellants. There was no deficiency in service as the vehicle met all the agreed specifications.

10.    The Appellant/OP-1&2 in Appeal No. 928 of 2022 raised mainly the following:

A. The Complainant sought to book a vehicle on 03.09.2016 in Erode to be delivered on 08.09.2016 for his son's birthday. Since this was not feasible, a car already invoiced but available at Salem was offered. He accepted this offer, paid the remaining balance on 07.09.2016, inspected the car on 08.09.2016, and accepted delivery without any complaints until 02.10.2016. The only concern raised then was regarding the registration at Erode. He used the vehicle from 08.09.2016 to 12.10.2016 and still possesses it. The claim of being sold a second-hand car emerged later, to pressurise them into covering the late registration fee at Erode RTO.

B.  The impugned order wrongly assumed that because he paid full amount, the seller must explain why the vehicle was returned. It was for the consumer must prove deficiency in service. Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd. v. Dolphin International Ltd. reiterated that the burden of proof in consumer disputes lies with the complainant.

C. The impugned order includes several findings based on suspicion and preponderances. Allegation that the car was used by someone else was imaginary, without considering records establishing the vehicle's transfer details.

D. The car delivered was new. Despite being invoiced in June 2016, it was in the showroom until it was delivered to the complainant as per his specific request. The claim that the car had run 273 KM at delivery is false. As per gate passes produced, it left showroom at Selam with 20 KM and arrived Erode with 103 KM. The permanent registration issue was due to his non-cooperation and not their fault.

E. The sale transaction is a contract for sale of a vehicle and not a service. There was no deficiency in delivery as per the agreed specifications and accessories.

F.  The Appellant demonstrated that the vehicle delivered was new, the sale was completed as per the contract, and any issues with registration were due to Respondent No. 1's actions.

11.    Upon the notice on the memo of Appeal, the Complainant filed written synopsis reaffirming the facts of the case and asserting that the State Commission order is well reasoned and covered all aspects of the case. He prayed that the Appeal filed by OPs be dismissed.

12. In his arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/OP-4 in FA No. 710 of 2022 reiterated the facts of the case, arguing that the relationship between the Appellant (OP-4) and the Respondents No.2 & 3 (OP-1 & 2) is on a 'Principal-to-Principal' basis. OP-4 is neither vicariously liable to the Complainant nor liable for the acts, omissions or commissions of the Respondents No.2 and 3. There is no privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No.1/Complainant, and that no service was provided by the Appellant to the Complainant that could be termed as "Deficient." Additionally, it was pointed out that there are no allegations against the Appellant in the Complaint filed by the Complainant. Thus, he sought to allow FA No.710 of 2022 and set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the State Commission in CC/24/2017. He relied on the following judgments in support of the arguments:

A. Indian Oil Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, Kerala (1994) 1 SCC 397;

B. Tata Motors Ltd. v. Autonio Paulo Vaz & Ors., AIR 2021 SC 1149;

C. Shivani v. Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine NCDRC 228.

13.    The learned counsel for the Appellants/OP-1 & 2 in FA No.928 of 2022 argued that the complainant booked a new Vento Highline AT Diesel car with OP-1 on 03.09.2016 requesting delivery on 08.09.2016 for his son's birthday. OP-1 informed the complainant that even if the vehicle was booked online from the manufacturer’s plant in Chakan (Maharashtra), it would not arrive by 08.09.2016. The complainant then sought for an alternative arrangement for delivery on 08.09.2016. Consequently, OP-1 informed him that a new Vento Highline Diesel 1.5 AT car, initially booked for another customer in June 2016 and already delivered to the showroom, was available. The complainant inspected the vehicle, reviewed the documents, and agreed to take delivery of the said car with instructions for delivery on 08.09.2016 at Erode. Accordingly, OP-1 delivered the new Vento Highline AT Diesel car with chassis No. MEXF16603GT092433 and engine No. CWX136635 invoiced in June 2016, to the complainant on 08.09.2016 at Erode. On 08.09.2016, the gate pass issued at the time of delivery from Appellant No.2 recorded 20 KM and the gate pass at Erode noted 103 km, indicating a distance of 83 KM from the showroom of OP-1 to the showroom of OP-1 via the regular route through highways. The complainant falsely alleged that the car had run 273 KM at the time of delivery at Erode. OP-1 delivered a new car originally booked for another customer and that the complainant received the vehicle with complete satisfaction. However, to gain unlawfully and tarnish the reputation of OP-1, the complainant filed complaint No.24 of 2017 before the State Commission. The vehicle is in the possession and custody of the Complainant, who uses it with a temporary registration at his own risk since he did not cooperate for permanent registration. Consequently, OP-1 returned the HDFC Demand Draft for Rs.1,90,995 issued in the name of RTO, Erode West, to the complainant on 13.10.2016 itself. He sought to allow FA No. 928 of 2022 and set aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2022 by the State Commission. He relied upon the following judgments:

A. S.G.S. India Ltd. v. Dolphin International Ltd., 2021 OnLine SC 879;

B. Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 66;

C. Manager, Premachal Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramdas & Ors., 2009 SCC Online NCDRC 45.

14.    On the other hand, the Complainant/Respondent No.1 appearing in person reiterated the facts of the case and argued that the gate pass record presented by the OP-1 as evidence with respect to the odometer reading is doctored and unreliable. OP-1 failed to provide evidence from the service schedule manual, which contains crucial data about the vehicle. OP-1 admitted that both delivery of the car and commencement of the warranty to the previous customer occurred on 30.06.2016, which raises questions about the vehicle's history and its condition at the time of sale. The stand of OP-1 is inconsistent as regards location of the car and details of its inspection. He highlighted contradictions between the agreed consideration, the invoice amount and the terms stated in the alleged sales contract. The warranty for the car began on 30.06.2016, which raises doubts about the legitimacy of the sales process. He accused OP-1 of hiding details about original sales transaction and subsequent sales return, which the complainant contended is an unfair trade practice. He alleged that OP-1 engaged in unfair trade practices and charged an exorbitant amount for the car. He further argued that the Appellant has not complied with the State Commission's directions, which included delivering a new car. Instead, OP-1 made false claims to evade liability. The disparity between an ordinary consumer and large automobile companies like the Appellant is significant and their appeal is an attempt to frustrate his legitimate claim. He has been paying a monthly parking fee of ₹1,000 since 2016, as OP-1 refused to take the car back leading to significant financial strain. Given the prolonged mental agony, litigation expenses, and the burden of higher interest rates on the car loans taken, he sought revised interest @ 18% from the date of advance payment until the date of refund; an additional compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for litigation expenses, ₹5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain and ₹1,000/- per month as parking charges.

15.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the Parties.

16.    The matter pertains to allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices in supply of a car at Erode, TN. It is undisputed that on 03.09.2016 the complainant had booked the car in question from OP-1 and had sought delivery of the car on 08.09.2016, which is the birthday of his son. OP-1 stated to have informed the complainant about the timelines involved in bringing an invoiced car from the plant to the showroom and that the car cannot be made available for delivery on 08.09.2016 itself as it takes for a while for the car to be booked with OP-3 and delivered to OP-1 at Erode. As the complainant desired the same car at Erode by 08.09.2016 itself, OP-1 ascertained from their showroom at Salem (OP-2) about the availability of same car, which was invoiced by someone and not delivered, and informed the complainant about the availability at Salem showroom and scope for delivery from OP-1 showroom at Erode within the date sought by complainant on 08.09.2016. It is the assertion of OP-1 that the offer that was made to the complainant was to provide the car with same specifications available in the showroom at OP-2 at Salem which was procured after being specifically invoiced for someone and, however, not delivered. The complainant paid complete consideration towards purchase of the same in the course of transaction for delivery on 08.09.2016. On 08.09.2016, the car was procured by OP-1 from OP-2 and was delivered to the complainant at Erode. After due receiving of the vehicle, the vehicle was to be registered at Erode for which OP-1 was ready to provide all necessary details. The dispute mainly arose when, after receiving the delivery from OP-1 and possessing it for some days, the complainant considered that the vehicle in question was preciously invoiced to someone else on 30.06.2016, its warranty started on 30.06.2016 and was already used for 273 KM and therefore it is a secondhand car, which was returned by other customer, that was given to him by OP-1. Despite specific clarifications and production of records of transition and distance from Salem to Erode, the complainant remained dissatisfied, asserted that OPs supplied a secondhand car and filed the present complaint seeking replacement or refund with interest, along with compensation.

17.    It is the contention of the complainant that the car that was delivered to him was previously invoiced on 30.06.2016 and had already run around 273 Kms and, therefore, is a secondhand car. He, therefore, alleged cheating by OPs. It is a matter of record that the complainant was informed of the availability of the car at Salem from where it was procured and delivered on 08.09.2016, on the date desired by the complainant. It is, therefore, evident that he was aware of non-availability of the car with desired specifications at Erode showroom of OP-1. He was also aware that for delivery on the date of the birthday of his son on 08.09.2016, the car needs to be brought from Salem showroom of OP-1 i.e. OP-2. It is undisputed that prior to taking a decision on the purchase of the said car, he had inspected the car, satisfied himself of the issues and finances involved and thereafter made the payment on 08.09.2016 and took possession. The dispute arose about a week after he took possession and confronted the registration charges, mileage on the odometer and alleged cheating against OP-1 that what was delivered to him was a secondhand car which indicated running for 273 KM on odometer. The OPs repeatedly asserted that with due regard to the specifications of the car booked by the complainant and the due date for delivery sought, the only option was to offer the car which was available at OP-2 showroom at Salem.

18.    It is the stand of OP-1 that these cars are brought from OP-3 to any showroom only on specific invoice and it takes some time for delivery to be affected. Considering the complainant’s specific request, they endeavored to ascertain the availability of the vehicle from OP-2, where the said car was available based on the request of a different customer and, however, was not delivered. Based on the satisfaction and confirmation from the complainant, OP-1 coordinated to obtain the said car from Salem on 08.09.2016 for him. After due inspection and satisfaction of the complainant, it was taken possession by him. It is the specific contention of OP-1 that the scope receive and availability of a car at a showroom is after an invoice, the prior invoicing of the car in question and its non-delivery to the person invoiced were already notified to the complainant. It is undisputed that the complainant had booked the car as per desired specifications, inspected the same, made payment and took possession on 08.09.2016. The payment made with respect to registration of the car at Erode is stated to have been refunded by OP-1 and uncontested.

19.    Therefore, in summary, the complainant received the car in question after inspection, satisfaction and after making payments due. His contention with respect to the objection of the car mainly pertains to it being a secondhand car, which has been explicitly refuted by the OPs. It is undisputed that this car was brought from Salem to Erode and then delivered to the complainant, which he was aware, undertook inspection, paid the consideration and took delivery on the date he wanted. The complainant has not brought out anything on record with respect to objections or reservations, if any, raised by him with the OPs prior to taking the possession of the vehicle. He has also not brought out anything about the deficiency in the functioning.

20.    With due regard to the explanation with respect to scope for ready availability of high value cars at a showroom, the action taken by OP-1 car dealer showroom to meet the demand of the complainant for delivery on 08.09.2016 is reasonable. Clearly, the complainant was aware that the vehicle was brought from Salem to Erode showroom. He inspected the car and satisfied himself before making payment and took delivery. If he had any reservation whatsoever with respect to any aspect, he was within his right to decline to take the car delivery on 08.09.2016 and wait for his turn after booking. He did not do so. Undisputedly, bringing the car from Salem to Erode will entail road travel of over 100 KM. There is nothing on record that is brought out by the complainant with respect to any deficiency in service with respect to the functioning of the car itself. It is the allegation of OPs that the complainant did not cooperate with car registration process, and they have refunded the amount paid by him towards registration. Why the complainant delayed the car registration, if any, is within his purview.

21.    In view of the foregoing, in my considered view, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice that has been established against OPs. Therefore, the order of learned State Commission in CC No. 24 of 2017 dated 29.04.2022 is set-aside and the complaint is dismissed. The present FA No. 710 of 2022 and FA No. 928 of 2022 are allowed.

22.    Considering the nature of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

23.    All pending Applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.