KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.213/08 JUDGMENT DATED 10.3.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALASARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Sitaram Motors Authorised Maruthi Deale T.U.D.A.Road, Peringavu, Thrissur -- APPELLANT Rep. by working Partner Venkittaraman. (By Adv.Nair Ajayakrishnan) Vs. 1. Archana Tampi, Chelakkat House, Peringavu, Thrissur. 2. M/s Maruthi Udyog Ltd., -- RESPONDENT Jeevan Prakash, 11th Floor 25 Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi, rep. by Managing Director. (B1 by Adv.P.Raj Mohan) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant herein was the second opposite party and the respondents 1 and 2 were the complainant and the first opposite party respectively in OP.529/05 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in supplying 2004 model WagonR car instead of supplying 2005 model vehicle. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed separate written versions denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the vehicle supplied to the complainant was 2005 model and there occurred a mistake in noting the year of manufacture as 2004. They also expressed their readiness to correct the mistake and issue the registration certificate for the vehicle with the year of manufacture as 2005. 2. Before the forum below Exts. P1 to P6 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and R1 particulars of models of Maruthi vehicles marked on the side of the second opposite party. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, the forum below passed the impugned order dated 30th June 2008 in OP529/05 directing the second opposite party (appellant) to refund Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant by way of the price of the vehicle with a further direction to pay Rs.30,000/- towards the registration fee and the insurance premium with interest at the rate of 12 % from the date of the petition till the date of the impugned order and thereafter interest at the rate of 6%. The second opposite party was also directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/-. Hence the present appeal. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ second opposite party and the first respondent/complaint. There was no representation for the second respondent/first opposite party. 4. The definite case of the appellant/second opposite party is that they supplied 2005 model vehicle to the first respondent/complainant and there was only a mistake in the particulars of the model of Maruthi vehicles dealt with by the appellant during the relevant period. The appellant/second opposite party has also relied on R1 particulars of models of Maruthi vehicles. Admittedly, R1 particulars of the vehicles would show that the complainant was supplied Maruthi vehicle namely WagonR which was manufactured in the year 2005. The appellant/first opposite party being the dealer and supplier of the said vehicle expressed their readiness to make necessary corrections in the registration certificate and thereby the year of manufacture of the vehicle supplied to the complainant will be shown as 2005. It is to be noted that the complainant was of the bonafide believe that he got a 2004 model vehicle. The aforesaid believe is based on the entries in the registration certificate issued by the department of motor vehicles. But the appellant/second opposite party is ready to correct the said mistake crept into the RC Book. If that be the position, there cannot be any grievance for the first respondent/complainant who purchased 2005 model WagonR Maruthi vehicle from the appellant/second opposite party Seetharam Motors. So, the grievance of the complainant can very well be redressed by making necessary corrections in the RC book of the vehicle. 5. The Forum below has ordered the second opposite party/dealer of the vehicle to refund the price of the vehicle amounting to Rs.3 lakhs. Admittedly, the cost of the said vehicle was Rs.3,70,000/-. It is very strange enough to note that by virtue of the impugned order the forum below permitted the complainant to retain the vehicle. At the same time, the complainant is benefited by the said order to get Rs.3 lakhs. So, the impugned order passed by the forum below is legally unsustainable and untenable. We have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order passed by the forum below. Hence we do so. 6. There can be no doubt that the complainant was compelled to move the forum below by filing OP.529/05 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties only because of the negligence and lapses on the part of the appellant/second opposite party dealer. It is also to be noted that the complainant being the purchaser of the vehicle had to approach the opposite parties to get his grievances redressed. But the opposite parties were not ready to redress the grievance of the complainant. It is only because of their failure to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant the complaint in OP.529/05 was filed before the forum below. There can also be no doubt about the fact that the complainant suffered mental agony and inconvenience because of the unfriendly attitude adopted by the appellant/second opposite party, the dealer of the vehicle. So, the complainant (first respondent) is to be compensated for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by him. We fix the compensation at Rs.20,000/- It is also made clear that the appellant/second opposite party, the dealer of the said vehicle is legally bound to take all necessary steps to get the mistake corrected in the RC book of the vehicle and the aforesaid mistake to be rectified within one month from this date. The first respondent/complainant is directed to hand over the RC book of the vehicle to the appellant/second opposite party immediately and the mistake will be rectified in the RC book within one month from the date of acceptance of the RC book from the complainant. Considering the peculiar nature and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.6.08 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.529/05 is set aside. The appellant/second opposite party is directed to take necessary steps to get the mistake in the RC book corrected within one month from the date of acceptance of the RC book from the complainant. The appellant/second opposite party is also liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the first respondent/complainant within one month failing which the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from this date. The complainant is also directed to hand over the RC book immediately to the appellant/second opposite party M/s.Sitaram Motors, Thrissur. There will be no order as to costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALASARANGADHARAN-- MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER | 
