JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H., PRESIDENT: The complainant herein has filed this complaint against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. - The averments of the complaint in brief are :
That the complainant had purchased a Passenger vehicle MAGIC IRIS, 5 seaters BSIII from OP No.1, in advance the complainant paid Rs.15,000-00 to the said vehicle for that the OP No.1 issued a Customer Order C2 Form Bearing No.1995 dated:
10-06-2014 and the OPs assured to deliver the MAGIC IRIS, 5 seaters BSIII Bearing Chasis No.MAT491101BJH01347, Engine No AIF0501462, CC-611, GVW1150, MFG-2014 Diesel vehicle, but the vehicle delivered in Gadag bears the Chasis No. MAT491005 BJH01347 which is a defected vehicle. 2. Within a month, the vehicle found to be an accident vehicle, which is found damaged, welded and polished, complainant requested the OP to correct the manufacturing defect but the OP’s have not responded positively, the complainant started to carry the passengers in the said vehicle on hire basis, the vehicle delivered was an old one, the loan was done for a new vehicle with difference in Chasis No., the complainant approached to the OP No.1 and 2 to refund the advance amount or to deliver a new vehicle the OP’s keep quite hence the complainant sent a legal notices but the OP No.1 received the same and had not replied. 3. The OP’s are the authorized dealer in Vehicles it is the bounded duty of the dealer to deliver the good vehicles but failed to follow the Terms and Conditions of the trade hence OP’s are liable to refund the amount of Rs.63,000-00 with interest @ 18% p.a and provide a new vehicle and a nominal compensation of Rs.1,00,000-00 along with cost of the proceedings. 4. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Forum, the OP’s had not received the notices by a note “left the place” the Forum directed the complainant to take steps by publishing in the newspaper, the notice had been published in a daily newspaper even though the OP had not came forward to appear before this Forum. 5. In pursuance of the notice issued to the OP, the OP had not appeared before the Forum. Hence, it is ex-parte. 6. On perusal of the materials, placed by the complainant following points arises for our consideration:- 1. Weather the complainant proves that there is a un-trade practice by the OPs? 2. Weather the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. What order? Our findings to the Point No.1: Negative, Point No.2 : Negative Point No.3 : as per the final Order R E A S O N S 7. POINT NO.1 & 2: Since both the points are Inter linked I considered both the points together to avoid the repetition of facts. 8. Perused the records, the case of the Complainant had purchased a vehicle TATA MAGIC IRIS from the OP No.1 and it had delivered by OP No.2, Complainant had produced Exhibit P1 to P15 to prove his case in which Ex. P1 Notice issued by the complainant counsel to the OP. The Notice discloses that the Complainant had purchased a TATA MAGIC IRIS vehicle from the OP bearing Chasis No. MAT 491101BJH01347 Engine No.AIFO501462 CC-611 GVW1150 assuring that it is free from manufacturing defects. After a month the complainant found that the vehicle is accidental vehicle the defected part of the vehicle had welded and polished. Hence, the complainant had called the OP to refund an amount of Rs.3,25,185/- with interest @ 12% p.a, defined as sale consideration and
Rs.2,75,185-00, damages Rs.50,000-00. 9. While filing the complaint the complainant had narrated a story and mentioned that the Chasis No. of the Vehicle delivered by the OP is different from which the OP had assured to deliver. 10. The materials produced by the complainant does not discloses the fact as alleged by the complainant in Ex. P2. The Loan document of TATA Motors Finance Ltd. produced by the Complainant does not carry any link to the complaint mere document stands in the name of the complainant the Chasis No. and the Engine No. are totally different as alleged in the complaint. Further, the complainant had alleged that the OP had assured to deliver a vehicle bearing the Chasis No. MAT 491101BJH01347 and Engine No. AIFO501462 but the vehicle delivered at Gadag bears Chasis No. MAT491005BJH 01347, the complainant had said that the vehicle had been purchased on loan, but the loan documents bears different Chasis and Engine No. (Ex P2) the complainant had not whispered about the difference in the Chasis No. in the notice sent to OP (Ex P1). 11. The document produced by the complainant marked as Ex P3 is the Proforma Invoice issued by OP which is dated on 31.05.2014 for an amount of Rs.2,75,185-00 which includes the Ex-showroom price of the vehicle, Tata Motor Insurance amount, Registration assistance amount, Tata Delight amount and the Life Tax and Passing, the invoice doesn’t contain any Chasis No. or Engine No. and more over the complainant had produced another document Customer Order C2 Form in which it is mentioned that the complainant had paid an advance of Rs.15,000-00 towards the booking of a vehicle Model Magic Iris on 10.06.2014, after the examination of the documents it is found that the complainant had paid the entire amount of the vehicle on 30.05.2014, again after ten days i.e. on 10.6.2014 the complainant had paid an advance of Rs.15,000-00, these documents cannot be linked hence its contradictory. 12. The document marked as Ex P4 is the Insurance Policy issued by the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. which discloses that the insured vehicle is same as mentioned in the notice of the complainant. 13. The photos marked as Ex P7 to Ex P11 produced by the complainant doesn’t prove that the vehicle delivered by the OP is that in the photos. 14. Further, the complainant had not registered a police complaint against the OP regarding the faulty vehicle delivered to him and as well as, as he said in his Complaint the Ops are fraud him by delivering the defective vehicle. The complainant failed to produce the documents which contain Chasis No. and Engine No. issued by the OP. In 1995 AIR S.C 1428 wherein it is written as “The complainant is not accompanied by any export evidence regarding alleged manufacturing defect”. In another case HMT Ltd and another V/s Zubeda Bi Cited as 1(2000) CPJ 154 M.P wherein it is stated that “any technical defect has to be proved by testimony of any expert in the field. No order of replacement of vehicle or refund of price can be made except in the case rare manufacturing defect has been established. An expert opinion is expected to give technical details and the reason why the expert has concluded that defects were manufacturing defects”. Hence that the complainant had not produced any expert evidence to show that the said vehicle had manufacturing defect and not annexed any independent laboratory or organization as defined U/s 2(1)(a) of CP Act and that in the view of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, National Commission as stated above it cannot be held that the goods suffers from manufacturing defects and that equipment is liable to be replace or exchanged without undisputed expert opinion, complainant failed to adduce any expert opinion to prove his case. Hence, the answer to point No.1 and 2 are negative. 15. POINT NO.3. In view of our findings on the above points the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In the result, we pass the following : //O R D E R// 1. The Complaint is dismissed. 2. Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 09th day of November 2015) Member Member President
| 
