Bhagyoday Motors Pvt. Ltd, V/S Smt Hanumayya W/o K Mudakappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 11/07

Smt Hanumayya W/o K Mudakappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhagyoday Motors Pvt. Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Y Srikanth

29 Nov 2008

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 11/07

Smt Hanumayya W/o K Mudakappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Bhagyoday Motors Pvt. Ltd, Tata Finance Limited, The Road Transport Officer, The Secretary,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Smt. Hanumavva against the four Respondents- (1) Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., through authorized dealer Bellary Road, Hospet, (2) Secretary Karnataka State Transport Authority MS Building Bangalore, (3) Road Transport Officer Raichur, and (4) TATA Finance Ltd., Oxford House 3rd floor, Rustam Bagh Estate Air port Road, Banglore for deficiency in service. The brief facts of the case are as under: The complainant purchased one TATA SUMO VICTOR vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-36/4512 having Chassis No. 446332 CUZ 015362 bearing Engine No. 483 DL 51 CVE 788181 with seating capacity of 9+1 according to the norms of payment. The vehicle worth according to the price is Rs. 4,66,000/- but the Respondent No-1 has wrongly fixed the price at Rs. 5,66,000/-. Out of which the complainant has paid (7) installments to the Respondent No-1. The seating capacity of the vehicle is 7 + 1 and Respondent NO- 2 & 3 in-collusion with Respondent No-1 have issued Permit/certificate as 9+ 1. This fact has not been informed to the complainant by the Respondents. Complaint is an illiterate lady. On coming to know the seating capacity of the vehicle she requested for the acts taken place and also requested for necessary redressal on number of times but the Respondents have not given any suitable response, reply and dodged the matter without discharging their part of performance. The A.C. parts of the vehicle are found defective with other parts within the warranty period. So the complainant intimated to set right of the defective AC parts and other defective parts and also intimated about the seating capacity but the Respondents not given any suitable reply and did not perform their blinding duty. The Respondent NO-1 even after oral requests of the complainant not given any response. So in-view of the same the legal notice has been given to the Respondent No-1 on 27-07-06 for complying the defects of the vehicle. In-spite of service of legal notice Respondent NO-1 has not given any response. Respondent No- 2 & 3 have given Permit/certificate showing the seating capacity as 9 + 1 without verifying the actual seating capacity of the vehicle supplied which is 7 + 1. So the Respondent No- 2 & 3 have been made as parties to this complaint. The Respondent NO-4 is a financier and for the purchase of the vehicle the Respondent No-4 has given cheque to Respondent No-1 and both are one and the same and now trying to seize the vehicle knowingly complaint is pending as against him and they both colluding have supplied defective and wrong vehicle. As such Respondent No-4 is also made as a party to this complaint. Complainant being a woman earning on the vehicle in-question but due to defective supply of vehicle within warranty period the burden of payment of installments on the complaint increased with interest. Due to non-movement and plying of the vehicle she has deprived and unable to pay taxes and installments. For the negligent and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent NO-1 they are liable to pay cost of the vehicle worth Rs. 5,66,000/- or alternative supply of the new vehicle. The date of delivery of the vehicle is 12-05-05 and the warranty period is (18) months from the date of delivery. The complainant made intimations within the warranty period and also given reply notice on 27-07-06. So from the date of oral intimation and legal notice the complaint is within the limitation. Therefore Respondent No.1 is liable to pay cost of defective vehicle. Hence for all these reasons complainant has sought for direction to Respondents to refund Rs. 5,66,000/- being the price of the vehicle or in the alternative to supply the new vehicle of same model brand and worth to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards damages and cost and Respondent NO-4 is to be restrained permanently from seizing the vehicle. 2. This complaint was originally filed against three Respondents and subsequently Respondent NO-4 was impleaded. In response to service of notice Respondent No-2 & 3 appeared through DGP. Respondent NO-1 remained absent and was placed Ex-parte. Subsequently Respondent No-1 appeared through counsel and sought for setting aside Ex-parte order against Respondent NO-1 which was allowed accordingly. Respondent No-4 has also appeared through counsel. All the Respondents have filed written version separately. 3. In his written statement Respondent No-1 has contended that although it is true that the complainant has purchased TATA SUMO VICTA GX from Respondent No-1 but the allegation in Para-1 of the complaint that the same was a Tourist Maxi Cab with seating capacity of 9 + 1 is absolutely false. In fact as clearly admitted in Para-3 of the legal notice dt. 23-08-06 got issued by the complainant, she has purchased vehicle having the seating capacity of 7+1 representing the same as required for her private and personal use. Accordingly the vehicle in-question was supplied to her for her personal use only and not for using it as a taxi. Even the Sale Certificate issued by this Respondent also clearly mentions the seating capacity as 7 + 1 for personal use and not for using as Taxi or Maxi Cab. The Insurance Policy issued by M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., also discloses that the vehicle is meant for private and personal use only. The allegation that complainant is a customer of Tourist Tata Sumo Victa with a seating capacity of 9 + 1 is specifically denied. The allegation that the price of the vehicle is Rs. 4,66,000/- and this Respondent No-1 has wrongly fixed the price at Rs. 5,66,000/- is false. In-fact the price is not fixed by this Respondent on the other hand it is fixed by the manufacturer M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., and Respondent NO-1 being only a Dealer is bound to charge the price as fixed by the manufacturer. The allegation that this Respondent instead of supplying the vehicle with seating capacity of 9 + 1 has supplied the vehicle with seating capacity of 7 + 1 is false and baseless. In fact the said vehicle was earlier booked in the name of complainants husband by name Mudukappa Nayak as per Order Form dt. 09-05-05 wherein it is clearly shown that an order for supply of (8) seater ( 7 + 1) vehicle is placed with this Respondent NO-1. However on the requests of the complainants husband on account of reasons best known to him, the Respondent NO-1 has obliged to sell the said vehicle in the name of complainant. The vehicle Tata Sumo Victa GX comes only with the seating capacity of 7 + 1 and another variant with a capacity of 6 + 1 but not with the capacity of 9 + 1 as alleged. Even the invoice raised by the manufacturer i.e, Tata Motors Limited also clearly mentions which is 7 + 1 capacity instead of 9 + 1 capacity is palpably false and baseless. The allegation that this Respondent has colluded with the Government Officials- Respondent No- 2 & 3 in respect of seating capacity of vehicle with 9 + 1 without verification of documents and vehicle and cheating the complainant are all false and baseless. This Respondent is really at a loss to understand as to how and in what way the complainant is cheated or that she has suffered loss or damages. Absolutely there is no averment in that regard. Admittedly the seating capacity of the vehicle as required by the complainants husband vide Order Form and of the vehicle supplied by this Respondent is 7 + 1. In-spite of same if Respondent No 2 & 3 have issued Permit/certificate as 9 + 1 capacity which is upto the complainant and Respondent NO- 2 & 3 and this Respondent No-1 is neither aware of the same nor is in any way responsible in that regard. It is an absolute false hood allegation that complainant requested this Respondent several times regarding seating capacity and for redressal of the same and this Respondent has not given suitable response and dodged the matter. The complainant is well aware at the time of purchase and taking delivery of the vehicle that she was purchasing a Tata Sumo Victa GX and that the seating capacity of the same is only 7 + 1 and not 9 + 1 which was in-fact was supplied as per their own requirements as such question of requesting for redressal regarding seating capacity does not arise at all. It is a total false hood to allege that AC parts of the vehicle were found defective with other parts. In fact the complainant brought the vehicle on 23-01-06 complaining about the bearing noise in the AC Compressor which was immediately attended and was set right to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant never complained about any defect or mall functioning of the AC as such it was no occasion for this Respondent to refuse to attend. If really the complainant was aggrieved by any defect in the AC machine, she could have very well brought the vehicle to this Respondent which would have been set right. Without brining the vehicle making any number of complaints either over phone or through legal notices would not serve useful purpose. The allegation that the complainant expected the earn by taking vehicle are palpably false because she never intended to purchase of Maxi Cab but on the other hand she intended to purchase the vehicle in-question only for personal use as clearly mentioned in the Order Form of her husband. Therefore absolutely there is no negligence or any deficiency of service on the part of this Respondent. The complainant having committed a blunder of ordering for 7 + 1 vehicle is now trying to put the blame on this Respondent which is not legally permissible. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-1 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent with compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. Respondent NO-2 Secretary, KSTA, Bangalore has sent written version by post on 08-03-07 alleging that Respondent NO-2 granted and issued the permit to the complainants the vehicle No. KA 36/4512 U/s. 88(9) of MV Act, after verifying the documents of the vehicle i.e, Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and documents Order issued by the Registering Authority. This Authority has relied on the Registration Certificate produced by the complainant at the time of issue of Permit this Authority was not required to go behind the records to ascertain the seating capacity as certified by the manufacturer. Regarding the mechanical defects noticed with the vehicle in-question before expiry of warranty period. This authority is in no way concerned, regarding mechanical performance of the vehicle. Hence Respondent NO-2 may be absolved from ant liability. 5. Respondent NO-3 RTO Raichur has filed written version contending that as per the sale letter dt. 13-05-05 issued by Bhagyodaya Motors Pvt., Ltd., Hospet the seating capacity was mentioned as 7 + 1 and as per the Form 20 filed to this office on 10-06-06 for its registration, the seating capacity of the vehicle was mentioned as 9 + 1 and accordingly the Motor Vehicle Inspector has furnished his report on 10-06-06 and the vehicle was registered as Maxi cab with seating capacity as 9 + 1 duly assigning number as KA- 36/4512. In this case the tax of the said vehicle is being assessed on the floor area of the vehicle as it is a passenger vehicle and there is no difference in tax for seating capacity 7 + 1 or 9 + 1 and the tax assessed as per Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1957 is in order. The Registered owner has issued a legal notice on 23-08-06 through her advocate to this Respondent and the detailed fact was informed to the complainant duly marking the said copy to the above registered owner advising her to pay the tax from 01-12-05 onwards as the tax due to the Government was not paid. Hence the allegation made is far from the truth and action taken by Respondent is in accordance with MV Act and Rules. In the sale letter dt. 13-05-05 issued by Bhagyodaya Motor Hospet, mentioning the seating capacity as 7 + 1 and wherein the said registered owner at the time of its Registration in Form NO. 20 dt. 10-06-06 has mentioned seating capacity as 9 + 1 and accordingly the vehicle was registered as Maxi Cab. If the owner has approached this Respondent prior to the expiry of tax period i.e, within 30-11-05 this Respondent could have advised him to keep the vehicle under Non-Use in Form 30 with fees Rs. 100/-. Hence he has submitted for dismissal of the complaint. 6. Respondent No-4 Tata Finance Ltd., Bangalore has filed written version contending that so far this Respondent is concerned the complainant is not a Consumer and hence there is no deficiency of service which can be attributed against this Respondent. The terms between the complainant and this Respondent is that of a Borrower and Lender the parties are bound by the Hire Purchase Contract and by filing this false complaint, the complainant is trying to seek the assistance of this Honble Forum to committee the breach of said contract. The allegation made by the complainant that she had been paying the installments regularly is quite false and far away from truth. There is no specifical allegation against this Respondent and complainant has unnecessarily made this Respondent as party to the proceedings. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost. 7. During the course of enquiry the complainant Hanumavva has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1. In rebuttal, the Director of M/s. Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., Hospet has filed his sworn-affidavit as RW-1 by way of examination-in-chief. The Respondent NO-2 to 4 have not adduced oral evidence in-spite of granting sufficient time. On behalf of complainant (12) documents were got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. On behalf of Respondent No-1 (9) documents have been got marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 and (3) documents have been got marked as Ex.R-10 to Ex.R-12 for Respondent No-3. Respondent NO-2 & 4 have not adduced any documentary evidence. It is pertinent to note here that the Respondent No-1 has filed Interrogatories to the complainant PW-1 which has been answered by the complainant and to set-right ambiguity, the complainant sought for appointment of Forum Commissioner through I.A.No-4 for inspection of the vehicle and to report regarding seating capacity of the vehicle and its condition with regard to defect in AC and other parts of the vehicle. After perusing the objection filed there to and hearing both sides, this Forum allowed the application and one Sri. B.S. Venkatesh, Divisional Mechanical Engineer NEKSRTC, Raichur has been appointed as Forum Commissioner to inspect the vehicle and to submit his report, who executed the commission warranty and has submitted his report. 8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by supplying vehicle of 7 + 1 of seating capacity as against the sale agreement for 9 + 1 of seating capacity and defective condition of the vehicle as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 9. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. Partly answered in the Affirmative and partly in the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 10. The dispute between the parties is that the complainant Hanumavva had placed order for supply of Maxi Cab Vehicle of seating capacity of 9 + 1 and the Respondent NO-1 Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., Hospet, has supplied vehicle of seating capacity of 7 + 1 and that the vehicle was having defects of AC and other part of the vehicle and that in-spite of request made from time to time the Respondent NO-1 failed to replace the vehicle and repairs the vehicle and ultimately she got issued legal notice to Respondent No-1 on 27-07-06 for complying the defects of the vehicle for which Respondent NO-1 did not respond and thereby she knocked the door of this Forum. On this line the LC for the complainant has argued vehemently and submitted for allowing the complaint by issuing direction for the supply of new vehicle of same model brand and worth or in the alternative to refund the price of the vehicle paid at Rs. 5,66,000/-. 11. As against this it is the case of the Respondent NO-1 and the argument of LC for Respondent No-1 that Respondent NO-1 has supplied the Tata Sumo Victa GX of seating capacity of 7 + 1 as per order placed by the Mudakappa, the husband of the complainant Hanumavva and there is absolutely no deficiency in service in supplying the vehicle purchased by the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant has not brought the alleged defective vehicle to the show-room of the Respondent NO-1 so as to repair the same and in the absence of the same, making any number of complaints either over phone or through notice cannot be taken as deficiency of service on the part of Respondent No-1 and that even now the Respondent No-1 is ready to repair the vehicle provided it is brought to the show-room/shop of the Respondent NO-1. He further argued that the Order Form for placing the order duly signed by Mudakappa, the husband of the complainant which is marked at Ex.R-1 go to show that they had placed the order for purchase of Tata Sumo Victa GX the seating capacity of which will always be 7 + 1 and not Tourist Maxi Cab Vehicle with seating capacity of 9 + 1. The sale certificate at Ex.R-2 issued by this Respondent go to show supply and sale of the vehicle of seating capacity as 7 + 1 to the complainant. He further argued that the transaction between the complainant and RTO Raichur (Respondent No-3) regarding issuance of registration certificate and permit showing the vehicle as 9 + 1 of seating capacity is in no way concerned, to this Respondent NO-1 since the vehicle supplied was at 7 + 1 seating capacity. He further submitted that even the RTO Authority was supposed to verify the vehicle sale certificate issued by this Respondent No-1 and by physical verification of the vehicle. Application/Form No-20 submitted by the complainant for Registration certificate shows the mentioning of seating capacity as 9 + 1 and showing the vehicle as Maxi Cab which is against the sale certificate and order form issued by Respondent No-1. Application Form No-20 submitted by the complainant to the RTO gave birth to the present dispute by wrongly mentioning the seating capacity of vehicle as 9 + 1 and showing the vehicle as Maxi Cab. So for the fault committed by the complainant which gave birth to the present dispute the Respondent NO-1 cannot be said to be deficient in service as alleged. 12. The complainant has filed (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. Out of which Ex.P-8 is the Attested True copy of Permit in-respect of Tourist Vehicle issued by Respondent NO-2 KSRTC Authority Bangalore. Ex.P-9 is the Attested True copy of Certificate of Registration. Ex.P-10 is the Attested True copy of Tax Card of Motor Vehicle. In these (3) documents the vehicle in-question KA-36/4512 belonging to Hanumavva has been shown as Tourist Maxi and seating capacity as 9 + 1. Ex.P-2 is the Receipt No. 5166 dt. 09-05-05 issued by Respondent No-1 Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., Hospet showing the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- from Mudakappa Nayak Manvi towards booking of Victa GX. Ex.P-3 is the another Receipt No. 5310 dt. 03-06-05 showing the receipt of Rs. 5,083/- from Smt. Hanumavva Manvi towards balance of Victa GX. Ex.P-4, Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6, & Ex.P-7 are the Counter Folios for having paid the installments by Hanumavva to the Respondent No.1 through TGB Bank. Ex.P-11 is another Receipt No. 5167 dt. 09-05-05 issued by Respondent NO-1 Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., showing the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- from Mudakappa Nayak Manvi towards payment of Victa GX. In those Receipts at Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-11 the vehicle is shown as Victa GX. Ex.P-12 is the Owners Manual Service Book of Tata Sumo Victa issued to the complainant from Respondent NO-1 interalia showing the warranty terms and conditions. 13. Respondent No-1 has produced (10) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10. Out of which Ex.R-1 is the Order Form dt. 09-05-05 signed by the husband of the complainant. Ex.R-2 is the Sale Certificate in Form No-21 dt. 13-05-05 issued by Respondent NO-1. Ex.R-3 is the Invoice No. 143 dt. 12-05-05 for Rs. 5,66,000/- raised by Respondent NO-1 in-respect of vehicle in-question. Ex.R-4 is the Invoice dt. 16-04-05 raised by Tata Motors Ltd., in the name of Respondent No-1. Ex.R-5 is the Endorsement of Temporary Registration Particulars dt. 23-05-07 issued by RTO Hospet in-respect of the vehicle in-question. Ex.R-6 is the Vehicle Insurance Policy dt. 13-05-05 in-respect of the vehicle issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hospet. Ex.R-7 is the Copy of Approval/Circular dt. 20-07-04 issued by Transport Commissioner Bangalore. Ex.R-8 is the Legal Notice issued by the complainant to Respondent No-1 dt. 27-07-06 office copy of which produced by the complainant at Ex.P-1. Ex.R-9 is the Out-Look-Sumo Victa Vehicle in the shape of advertisement Broacher. Ex.R-10 is the Form No-19 Temporary Certificate of Registration issued by RTO Raichur. Ex.R-11 is the Form No.21 Sale Certificate dt. 13-05-05 issued by Respondent No-1. Ex.R-12 is Form No.20 (application form for registration) submitted by Smt. Hanumavva to the RTO Raichur. 14. Ex.R-1 Order Form shows the order placed by Mudakappa Nayak (the husband of the complainant) for supply/purchase of Victa GX (8) seaters for personal use. Ex.R-2 = Ex.R-11 is the sale certificate in Form No-21 issued by Respondent No-1 certifying the sale of Tata Sumo Victa GX EURO II and has been delivered to Smt. Hanumavva W/o. Mudakapa Nayak (complainant). The seating capacity including driver seat is shown as 7 + 1. It also shows Chassis No, Engine No. & Horse Power of Cubic capacity which is not in dispute. Ex.R-3, Ex.R-4 & Ex.R-5 shows description of the vehicle as Tata Sumo Victa GX EURO II with seating capacity as 7 + 1. 15. From Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 it clearly shows that Mudakappa the husband of the complainant had placed order for supply/purchase of Tata Sumo Victa GX (8) seaters for personal use and accordingly the said vehicle was sold the sale certificate invoice and temporary registration also shows the sale of Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters. There is no dispute that Mudakappa is the husband of the complainant. The signature of this Mudakappa also finds place in the report of Forum Commissioner appointed at the instance of complainant. It means the Mudakappa the husband of the complainant was managing the affairs on behalf of his wife complainant. Under these circumstances the arguments of the LC for the complainant that complainant has not placed the order for supply/purchase of Tata Sumo Victa GX (8) seaters vide Ex.R-1 does not hold any water, especially when the Commissioner Report of course which is not got marked, but it being a part of the record shows the active part taken by Mudakappa the husband of the complainant by putting his signature on the Commissioner Repot. As stated supra Sri. B.V. Venkatesh Divisional Mechanical Engineer NEKRTC Raichur was appointed as Forum Commissioner to inspect and report the condition of the vehicle who after inspecting the vehicle has submitted his report on 06-05-08. Under these circumstances the contention/argument on behalf of the complainant that there was oral sale talk as per which the complainant had placed order for supply of Tata Sumo Maxi Cab of (9+1) seater does not hold any water. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the complainant had placed order for Tata Sumo Maxi Cab of (10) seater then in the natural course of events, the complainant could have refused to take delivery of Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters when the vehicle was delivered on 13-05-05 vide Ex.R-2 or even till she applied for registration of the vehicle before RTO Authority on 10-06-05. When according to her the Respondents have supplied (8) seater Tata Sumo Victa GX as against the Tata Sumo Maxi Cab (10) seaters then what necessitated her to mention the description of the vehicle for registration as Maxi Cab of 9 + 1 seating capacity which according to her was not delivered/ supplied to her. If all these lacunas are taken into account it amply go to shows that the complainant has purchased Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters. 16. Nextly it is argued by the L.C. for the complainant that the Registration Certificate at Ex.P-9 and Permit at Ex.P-10 issued by RTO Authority go to show the vehicle as Tourist Maxi of (10) seaters and the RTO Authorities-Respondent NO- 2 & 3 without verifying the vehicle have blindly issued the two certificates at Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 mentioning the vehicle as Tourist Maxi Cab of (10) seaters. Of course as rightly argued by the LC, we find a glaring mistake committed by Respondent NO- 2 & 3 in this regard and the explanation of Respondent NO- 2 & 3 in their written version that as per the application of the complainant they have mentioned the vehicle as Maxi Cab of (10) seaters cannot be said to be explanation since they are duty bound to issue Registration Certificate and Permit after physical verification of the vehicle as such, but this lacunas will not help to the complainant in any way especially when according to her the Respondent NO-1 has supplied the Tata Sumo Victa Sumo of (8) seaters as against her order for supply of Maxi Cab of (10) seater. But as discussed above Ex.R-1 order form goes to show that the husband of the complainant had placed order for supply/purchase of (8) seaters Tata Sumo Victa GX and not Tata Sumo Maxi Cab (10) seaters which was taken delivery by the complainant along with sale certificate etc., thee is absolutely no material on record that the complainant had made complaint to Respondent No-1 in this regard and sought for replacement of (10) seaters vehicle within the reasonable time from the date of taking delivery of this vehicle in-question except, a stray statement ( at para-4 of her complaint) that she had made oral request for necessary redressal which is against the nature of prudent person. As per para-6 of her complaint she had given a legal notice to the Respondents on 27-07-06 in the matter but the office copy of the legal notice dt. 27-07-06 at Ex.P-1=Ex.R-8 does not whisper a single word that the Respondent NO-1 has supplied (8) seater vehicle instead of (10) seater vehicle. But in Para-2 of her legal notice it is stated that she has purchased Tourist Tata Sumo with seating capacity of 9+ 1 from the Respondent No-1. From a close scrutiny of this legal notice it states only with regard to defects of AC and other parts of the vehicle and sought to set right the defects. Except this there is no allegation that she has made in the complaint that the Respondent NO-1 had supplied vehicle of seating capacity of (8) seater as against (10) seater. This legal notice dt. 27-07-06 Ex.P-1=Ex.R-8 makes it clear that from the date of taking delivery of the vehicle in-question and even at the time of issuance of legal notice vide ex.P-1 the complainant had no grievance in regard to the seating capacity of the vehicle. This in-turn falsify her contention that Respondent NO-1 supplied Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters as against her order for Maxi Cab of (10) seaters. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has failed to prove that Respondent NO-1 has supplied Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters as against oral agreement for purchase/sale of Tata Sumo Victa Gx of (10) seaters. 17. Now let us consider the contention of the complainant regarding defect of AC parts and other parts of the vehicle. The complainant in Para-5 & 6 of her complaint has contended that AC parts and other parts of the vehicle are found defective and she intimated Respondent No-1 to set right the defective AC parts and other parts even within in the warranty period but the Respondent No-1 did not perform their binding duty so she got issued legal notice to the Respondent No-1 on 27-07-06 for complying the defects of the vehicle. But in-spite of service of legal notice Respondent NO-1 has not given any response, so she has filed the present complaint. Admittedly the vehicle in-question was purchased/taken delivery on 13-05-05 as per sale certificate Ex.R-2. Copy of legal notice Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8 shows issuance of legal notice on 27-07-06 which is within the warranty period as per Ex.P-12 Owners Manual and Service Book of Tata Sumo Victa GX on Page NO-8 of the manual. This means the complainant through Ex.P-1=Ex.R-8 has called upon Respondent No-1 to set right the defects of AC and other parts of the vehicle. The Respondent No-1 has not produced any evidence to show that they have complied with notice or replied to the said notice in any manner, this amply go to show that Respondent No-1 have not responded even to the legal notice got issued by the complainant. In this back ground the contention of the complainant that she had orally complained the defects of the AC and other parts of the vehicle and on failure of the Respondent NO-1 to respond to the same, she got issued legal notice probabalizes her case. The argument of the LC for the Respondent No-1 that the complainant without brining the vehicle to the showroom/shop of Respondent No-1 for showing the defects and for set righting the same she went on informing over phone and so they did not respond holds no water, especially when after the receipt of legal notice Ex.P.1 = Ex.R.8 from the complainant, they could have replied or intimated to the complainant for bringing the vehicle to their show room to ascertain the alleged defects and to set right the same. So the failure on the part of Respondent No-1 is not only against the warranty terms and conditions vide Ex.P-12 and also shows deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1. 18. The L.C. for the complainant submitted that the vehicle in-question was used for three months and thereafter it was stopped moving and kept idle and at that juncture legal notice came to be issued which was not responded by the Respondent No-1 and thereby the complainant was forced to get the vehicle repaired by incurring expenditure and now the generous submission made by the LC for the Respondent No-1 that even now Respondent No-1 is ready to repair the vehicle free of service charges is of no avail to the complainant. We find substances in this argument especially when the Respondent No-1 even failed to reply to the legal notice issued at Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8. The Forum Commissioner Report dt. 06-05-08 go to show that when he inspected the vehicle he found the vehicle is of 7 + 1 seater and it was in good condition but however he noticed that AC part of the vehicle was not in working condition. Admittedly this Forum Commissioner has inspected the vehicle in the presence of both the parties and the respective advocate. This shows that the AC part of the vehicle still is not in working condition and it supports the contents of legal notice Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8 that the AC parts was defective after (3) months of the purchase of the vehicle. The argument of the LC for the complainant that she got repaired vehicle by incurring expenditure, is not supported by any voucher/bill. But however the report of Forum Commissioner as stated above shows that the vehicle was in good condition except the AC part which was not in good condition probabalizes the contention of the complainant that she got repaired the vehicle but in the absence of any voucher produced by the complainant we are unable to consider for reimbursement of the same. So all these factors go to show deficiency in service by the Respondent No-1 in not complying even to the legal notice for setting right the defects as stated in the legal notice and so to this extent we hold that the complainant has proved this aspect of the matter. 19. In a nut shell we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the Respondent No-1 has supplied the vehicle Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters as against the oral sale agreement for supply of Tata Sumo Victa Maxi Cab of (10) seater. However the complainant has proved that the Respondent No-1 was negligent and deficient in not complying to the legal notice for setting right the defects of AC and other parts of the vehicle and so Point No-1 is partly answered in the affirmative and partly in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 20. The complainant has sought for refund of Rs. 5,66,000/- being the cost/worth of the vehicle or in the alternative to supply the new vehicle of same model brand and worth, along-with Rs. 20,000/- towards cost and damages. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 one thing is clear that the vehicle had defects in AC parts and some other parts But the complainant in her complaint has not specifically stated as to which parts were defective. When according to her she got repaired the vehicle, then she could have specifically stated the other defective parts by producing, the estimate and bills of the mechanic through whom she got it repaired. When the complainant is harping upon for deficiency in service by the Respondent No-1 then she should be very specific and definite as to which parts of the vehicle were defective. In the absence of the same it follows that those defects were not manufacturing defects. Hence her claim for replacement of the vehicle or for refund of the price cannot be accepted but however having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in Point No-1, and having regard to the report of the Forum Commissioner that vehicle is in good condition except AC part which was not in working condition, we feel it just and proper to direct Respondent No-1 for setting right at their cost and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by the complainant for repairing the other parts of vehicle which was made known to the Respondent No-1 through legal notice Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8. In this view of the matter we pass the following order ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent No-1 is directed to set right the AC part of the vehicle free of cost even by replacing AC part if any and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- including cost of proceedings. The Respondent shall comply this order within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-11-08) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

By Sri. N.H. Savalagi President:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Smt. Hanumavva against the four Respondents- (1) Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., through authorized dealer Bellary Road, Hospet, (2) Secretary Karnataka State Transport Authority MS Building Bangalore, (3) Road Transport Officer Raichur, and (4) TATA Finance Ltd., Oxford House 3rd floor, Rustam Bagh Estate Air port Road, Banglore for deficiency in service. The brief facts of the case are as under: The complainant purchased one TATA SUMO VICTOR vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-36/4512 having Chassis No. 446332 CUZ 015362 bearing Engine No. 483 DL 51 CVE 788181 with seating capacity of 9+1 according to the norms of payment. The vehicle worth according to the price is Rs. 4,66,000/- but the Respondent No-1 has wrongly fixed the price at Rs. 5,66,000/-. Out of which the complainant has paid (7) installments to the Respondent No-1. The seating capacity of the vehicle is 7 + 1 and Respondent NO- 2 & 3 in-collusion with Respondent No-1 have issued Permit/certificate as 9+ 1. This fact has not been informed to the complainant by the Respondents. Complaint is an illiterate lady. On coming to know the seating capacity of the vehicle she requested for the acts taken place and also requested for necessary redressal on number of times but the Respondents have not given any suitable response, reply and dodged the matter without discharging their part of performance. The A.C. parts of the vehicle are found defective with other parts within the warranty period. So the complainant intimated to set right of the defective AC parts and other defective parts and also intimated about the seating capacity but the Respondents not given any suitable reply and did not perform their blinding duty. The Respondent NO-1 even after oral requests of the complainant not given any response. So in-view of the same the legal notice has been given to the Respondent No-1 on 27-07-06 for complying the defects of the vehicle. In-spite of service of legal notice Respondent NO-1 has not given any response. Respondent No- 2 & 3 have given Permit/certificate showing the seating capacity as 9 + 1 without verifying the actual seating capacity of the vehicle supplied which is 7 + 1. So the Respondent No- 2 & 3 have been made as parties to this complaint. The Respondent NO-4 is a financier and for the purchase of the vehicle the Respondent No-4 has given cheque to Respondent No-1 and both are one and the same and now trying to seize the vehicle knowingly complaint is pending as against him and they both colluding have supplied defective and wrong vehicle. As such Respondent No-4 is also made as a party to this complaint. Complainant being a woman earning on the vehicle in-question but due to defective supply of vehicle within warranty period the burden of payment of installments on the complaint increased with interest. Due to non-movement and plying of the vehicle she has deprived and unable to pay taxes and installments. For the negligent and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent NO-1 they are liable to pay cost of the vehicle worth Rs. 5,66,000/- or alternative supply of the new vehicle. The date of delivery of the vehicle is 12-05-05 and the warranty period is (18) months from the date of delivery. The complainant made intimations within the warranty period and also given reply notice on 27-07-06. So from the date of oral intimation and legal notice the complaint is within the limitation. Therefore Respondent No.1 is liable to pay cost of defective vehicle. Hence for all these reasons complainant has sought for direction to Respondents to refund Rs. 5,66,000/- being the price of the vehicle or in the alternative to supply the new vehicle of same model brand and worth to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards damages and cost and Respondent NO-4 is to be restrained permanently from seizing the vehicle. 2. This complaint was originally filed against three Respondents and subsequently Respondent NO-4 was impleaded. In response to service of notice Respondent No-2 & 3 appeared through DGP. Respondent NO-1 remained absent and was placed Ex-parte. Subsequently Respondent No-1 appeared through counsel and sought for setting aside Ex-parte order against Respondent NO-1 which was allowed accordingly. Respondent No-4 has also appeared through counsel. All the Respondents have filed written version separately. 3. In his written statement Respondent No-1 has contended that although it is true that the complainant has purchased TATA SUMO VICTA GX from Respondent No-1 but the allegation in Para-1 of the complaint that the same was a Tourist Maxi Cab with seating capacity of 9 + 1 is absolutely false. In fact as clearly admitted in Para-3 of the legal notice dt. 23-08-06 got issued by the complainant, she has purchased vehicle having the seating capacity of 7+1 representing the same as required for her private and personal use. Accordingly the vehicle in-question was supplied to her for her personal use only and not for using it as a taxi. Even the Sale Certificate issued by this Respondent also clearly mentions the seating capacity as 7 + 1 for personal use and not for using as Taxi or Maxi Cab. The Insurance Policy issued by M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., also discloses that the vehicle is meant for private and personal use only. The allegation that complainant is a customer of Tourist Tata Sumo Victa with a seating capacity of 9 + 1 is specifically denied. The allegation that the price of the vehicle is Rs. 4,66,000/- and this Respondent No-1 has wrongly fixed the price at Rs. 5,66,000/- is false. In-fact the price is not fixed by this Respondent on the other hand it is fixed by the manufacturer M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., and Respondent NO-1 being only a Dealer is bound to charge the price as fixed by the manufacturer. The allegation that this Respondent instead of supplying the vehicle with seating capacity of 9 + 1 has supplied the vehicle with seating capacity of 7 + 1 is false and baseless. In fact the said vehicle was earlier booked in the name of complainants husband by name Mudukappa Nayak as per Order Form dt. 09-05-05 wherein it is clearly shown that an order for supply of (8) seater ( 7 + 1) vehicle is placed with this Respondent NO-1. However on the requests of the complainants husband on account of reasons best known to him, the Respondent NO-1 has obliged to sell the said vehicle in the name of complainant. The vehicle Tata Sumo Victa GX comes only with the seating capacity of 7 + 1 and another variant with a capacity of 6 + 1 but not with the capacity of 9 + 1 as alleged. Even the invoice raised by the manufacturer i.e, Tata Motors Limited also clearly mentions which is 7 + 1 capacity instead of 9 + 1 capacity is palpably false and baseless. The allegation that this Respondent has colluded with the Government Officials- Respondent No- 2 & 3 in respect of seating capacity of vehicle with 9 + 1 without verification of documents and vehicle and cheating the complainant are all false and baseless. This Respondent is really at a loss to understand as to how and in what way the complainant is cheated or that she has suffered loss or damages. Absolutely there is no averment in that regard. Admittedly the seating capacity of the vehicle as required by the complainants husband vide Order Form and of the vehicle supplied by this Respondent is 7 + 1. In-spite of same if Respondent No 2 & 3 have issued Permit/certificate as 9 + 1 capacity which is upto the complainant and Respondent NO- 2 & 3 and this Respondent No-1 is neither aware of the same nor is in any way responsible in that regard. It is an absolute false hood allegation that complainant requested this Respondent several times regarding seating capacity and for redressal of the same and this Respondent has not given suitable response and dodged the matter. The complainant is well aware at the time of purchase and taking delivery of the vehicle that she was purchasing a Tata Sumo Victa GX and that the seating capacity of the same is only 7 + 1 and not 9 + 1 which was in-fact was supplied as per their own requirements as such question of requesting for redressal regarding seating capacity does not arise at all. It is a total false hood to allege that AC parts of the vehicle were found defective with other parts. In fact the complainant brought the vehicle on 23-01-06 complaining about the bearing noise in the AC Compressor which was immediately attended and was set right to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant never complained about any defect or mall functioning of the AC as such it was no occasion for this Respondent to refuse to attend. If really the complainant was aggrieved by any defect in the AC machine, she could have very well brought the vehicle to this Respondent which would have been set right. Without brining the vehicle making any number of complaints either over phone or through legal notices would not serve useful purpose. The allegation that the complainant expected the earn by taking vehicle are palpably false because she never intended to purchase of Maxi Cab but on the other hand she intended to purchase the vehicle in-question only for personal use as clearly mentioned in the Order Form of her husband. Therefore absolutely there is no negligence or any deficiency of service on the part of this Respondent. The complainant having committed a blunder of ordering for 7 + 1 vehicle is now trying to put the blame on this Respondent which is not legally permissible. Hence for all these reasons Respondent No-1 has sought for dismissal of the complaint against this Respondent with compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 4. Respondent NO-2 Secretary, KSTA, Bangalore has sent written version by post on 08-03-07 alleging that Respondent NO-2 granted and issued the permit to the complainants the vehicle No. KA 36/4512 U/s. 88(9) of MV Act, after verifying the documents of the vehicle i.e, Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and documents Order issued by the Registering Authority. This Authority has relied on the Registration Certificate produced by the complainant at the time of issue of Permit this Authority was not required to go behind the records to ascertain the seating capacity as certified by the manufacturer. Regarding the mechanical defects noticed with the vehicle in-question before expiry of warranty period. This authority is in no way concerned, regarding mechanical performance of the vehicle. Hence Respondent NO-2 may be absolved from ant liability. 5. Respondent NO-3 RTO Raichur has filed written version contending that as per the sale letter dt. 13-05-05 issued by Bhagyodaya Motors Pvt., Ltd., Hospet the seating capacity was mentioned as 7 + 1 and as per the Form 20 filed to this office on 10-06-06 for its registration, the seating capacity of the vehicle was mentioned as 9 + 1 and accordingly the Motor Vehicle Inspector has furnished his report on 10-06-06 and the vehicle was registered as Maxi cab with seating capacity as 9 + 1 duly assigning number as KA- 36/4512. In this case the tax of the said vehicle is being assessed on the floor area of the vehicle as it is a passenger vehicle and there is no difference in tax for seating capacity 7 + 1 or 9 + 1 and the tax assessed as per Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1957 is in order. The Registered owner has issued a legal notice on 23-08-06 through her advocate to this Respondent and the detailed fact was informed to the complainant duly marking the said copy to the above registered owner advising her to pay the tax from 01-12-05 onwards as the tax due to the Government was not paid. Hence the allegation made is far from the truth and action taken by Respondent is in accordance with MV Act and Rules. In the sale letter dt. 13-05-05 issued by Bhagyodaya Motor Hospet, mentioning the seating capacity as 7 + 1 and wherein the said registered owner at the time of its Registration in Form NO. 20 dt. 10-06-06 has mentioned seating capacity as 9 + 1 and accordingly the vehicle was registered as Maxi Cab. If the owner has approached this Respondent prior to the expiry of tax period i.e, within 30-11-05 this Respondent could have advised him to keep the vehicle under Non-Use in Form 30 with fees Rs. 100/-. Hence he has submitted for dismissal of the complaint. 6. Respondent No-4 Tata Finance Ltd., Bangalore has filed written version contending that so far this Respondent is concerned the complainant is not a Consumer and hence there is no deficiency of service which can be attributed against this Respondent. The terms between the complainant and this Respondent is that of a Borrower and Lender the parties are bound by the Hire Purchase Contract and by filing this false complaint, the complainant is trying to seek the assistance of this Honble Forum to committee the breach of said contract. The allegation made by the complainant that she had been paying the installments regularly is quite false and far away from truth. There is no specifical allegation against this Respondent and complainant has unnecessarily made this Respondent as party to the proceedings. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost. 7. During the course of enquiry the complainant Hanumavva has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1. In rebuttal, the Director of M/s. Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., Hospet has filed his sworn-affidavit as RW-1 by way of examination-in-chief. The Respondent NO-2 to 4 have not adduced oral evidence in-spite of granting sufficient time. On behalf of complainant (12) documents were got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. On behalf of Respondent No-1 (9) documents have been got marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9 and (3) documents have been got marked as Ex.R-10 to Ex.R-12 for Respondent No-3. Respondent NO-2 & 4 have not adduced any documentary evidence. It is pertinent to note here that the Respondent No-1 has filed Interrogatories to the complainant PW-1 which has been answered by the complainant and to set-right ambiguity, the complainant sought for appointment of Forum Commissioner through I.A.No-4 for inspection of the vehicle and to report regarding seating capacity of the vehicle and its condition with regard to defect in AC and other parts of the vehicle. After perusing the objection filed there to and hearing both sides, this Forum allowed the application and one Sri. B.S. Venkatesh, Divisional Mechanical Engineer NEKSRTC, Raichur has been appointed as Forum Commissioner to inspect the vehicle and to submit his report, who executed the commission warranty and has submitted his report. 8. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by supplying vehicle of 7 + 1 of seating capacity as against the sale agreement for 9 + 1 of seating capacity and defective condition of the vehicle as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 9. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. Partly answered in the Affirmative and partly in the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 10. The dispute between the parties is that the complainant Hanumavva had placed order for supply of Maxi Cab Vehicle of seating capacity of 9 + 1 and the Respondent NO-1 Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., Hospet, has supplied vehicle of seating capacity of 7 + 1 and that the vehicle was having defects of AC and other part of the vehicle and that in-spite of request made from time to time the Respondent NO-1 failed to replace the vehicle and repairs the vehicle and ultimately she got issued legal notice to Respondent No-1 on 27-07-06 for complying the defects of the vehicle for which Respondent NO-1 did not respond and thereby she knocked the door of this Forum. On this line the LC for the complainant has argued vehemently and submitted for allowing the complaint by issuing direction for the supply of new vehicle of same model brand and worth or in the alternative to refund the price of the vehicle paid at Rs. 5,66,000/-. 11. As against this it is the case of the Respondent NO-1 and the argument of LC for Respondent No-1 that Respondent NO-1 has supplied the Tata Sumo Victa GX of seating capacity of 7 + 1 as per order placed by the Mudakappa, the husband of the complainant Hanumavva and there is absolutely no deficiency in service in supplying the vehicle purchased by the complainant. He further submitted that the complainant has not brought the alleged defective vehicle to the show-room of the Respondent NO-1 so as to repair the same and in the absence of the same, making any number of complaints either over phone or through notice cannot be taken as deficiency of service on the part of Respondent No-1 and that even now the Respondent No-1 is ready to repair the vehicle provided it is brought to the show-room/shop of the Respondent NO-1. He further argued that the Order Form for placing the order duly signed by Mudakappa, the husband of the complainant which is marked at Ex.R-1 go to show that they had placed the order for purchase of Tata Sumo Victa GX the seating capacity of which will always be 7 + 1 and not Tourist Maxi Cab Vehicle with seating capacity of 9 + 1. The sale certificate at Ex.R-2 issued by this Respondent go to show supply and sale of the vehicle of seating capacity as 7 + 1 to the complainant. He further argued that the transaction between the complainant and RTO Raichur (Respondent No-3) regarding issuance of registration certificate and permit showing the vehicle as 9 + 1 of seating capacity is in no way concerned, to this Respondent NO-1 since the vehicle supplied was at 7 + 1 seating capacity. He further submitted that even the RTO Authority was supposed to verify the vehicle sale certificate issued by this Respondent No-1 and by physical verification of the vehicle. Application/Form No-20 submitted by the complainant for Registration certificate shows the mentioning of seating capacity as 9 + 1 and showing the vehicle as Maxi Cab which is against the sale certificate and order form issued by Respondent No-1. Application Form No-20 submitted by the complainant to the RTO gave birth to the present dispute by wrongly mentioning the seating capacity of vehicle as 9 + 1 and showing the vehicle as Maxi Cab. So for the fault committed by the complainant which gave birth to the present dispute the Respondent NO-1 cannot be said to be deficient in service as alleged. 12. The complainant has filed (12) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. Out of which Ex.P-8 is the Attested True copy of Permit in-respect of Tourist Vehicle issued by Respondent NO-2 KSRTC Authority Bangalore. Ex.P-9 is the Attested True copy of Certificate of Registration. Ex.P-10 is the Attested True copy of Tax Card of Motor Vehicle. In these (3) documents the vehicle in-question KA-36/4512 belonging to Hanumavva has been shown as Tourist Maxi and seating capacity as 9 + 1. Ex.P-2 is the Receipt No. 5166 dt. 09-05-05 issued by Respondent No-1 Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., Hospet showing the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- from Mudakappa Nayak Manvi towards booking of Victa GX. Ex.P-3 is the another Receipt No. 5310 dt. 03-06-05 showing the receipt of Rs. 5,083/- from Smt. Hanumavva Manvi towards balance of Victa GX. Ex.P-4, Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6, & Ex.P-7 are the Counter Folios for having paid the installments by Hanumavva to the Respondent No.1 through TGB Bank. Ex.P-11 is another Receipt No. 5167 dt. 09-05-05 issued by Respondent NO-1 Bhagyodaya Motors Private Ltd., showing the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- from Mudakappa Nayak Manvi towards payment of Victa GX. In those Receipts at Ex.P-2, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-11 the vehicle is shown as Victa GX. Ex.P-12 is the Owners Manual Service Book of Tata Sumo Victa issued to the complainant from Respondent NO-1 interalia showing the warranty terms and conditions. 13. Respondent No-1 has produced (10) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10. Out of which Ex.R-1 is the Order Form dt. 09-05-05 signed by the husband of the complainant. Ex.R-2 is the Sale Certificate in Form No-21 dt. 13-05-05 issued by Respondent NO-1. Ex.R-3 is the Invoice No. 143 dt. 12-05-05 for Rs. 5,66,000/- raised by Respondent NO-1 in-respect of vehicle in-question. Ex.R-4 is the Invoice dt. 16-04-05 raised by Tata Motors Ltd., in the name of Respondent No-1. Ex.R-5 is the Endorsement of Temporary Registration Particulars dt. 23-05-07 issued by RTO Hospet in-respect of the vehicle in-question. Ex.R-6 is the Vehicle Insurance Policy dt. 13-05-05 in-respect of the vehicle issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hospet. Ex.R-7 is the Copy of Approval/Circular dt. 20-07-04 issued by Transport Commissioner Bangalore. Ex.R-8 is the Legal Notice issued by the complainant to Respondent No-1 dt. 27-07-06 office copy of which produced by the complainant at Ex.P-1. Ex.R-9 is the Out-Look-Sumo Victa Vehicle in the shape of advertisement Broacher. Ex.R-10 is the Form No-19 Temporary Certificate of Registration issued by RTO Raichur. Ex.R-11 is the Form No.21 Sale Certificate dt. 13-05-05 issued by Respondent No-1. Ex.R-12 is Form No.20 (application form for registration) submitted by Smt. Hanumavva to the RTO Raichur. 14. Ex.R-1 Order Form shows the order placed by Mudakappa Nayak (the husband of the complainant) for supply/purchase of Victa GX (8) seaters for personal use. Ex.R-2 = Ex.R-11 is the sale certificate in Form No-21 issued by Respondent No-1 certifying the sale of Tata Sumo Victa GX EURO II and has been delivered to Smt. Hanumavva W/o. Mudakapa Nayak (complainant). The seating capacity including driver seat is shown as 7 + 1. It also shows Chassis No, Engine No. & Horse Power of Cubic capacity which is not in dispute. Ex.R-3, Ex.R-4 & Ex.R-5 shows description of the vehicle as Tata Sumo Victa GX EURO II with seating capacity as 7 + 1. 15. From Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 it clearly shows that Mudakappa the husband of the complainant had placed order for supply/purchase of Tata Sumo Victa GX (8) seaters for personal use and accordingly the said vehicle was sold the sale certificate invoice and temporary registration also shows the sale of Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters. There is no dispute that Mudakappa is the husband of the complainant. The signature of this Mudakappa also finds place in the report of Forum Commissioner appointed at the instance of complainant. It means the Mudakappa the husband of the complainant was managing the affairs on behalf of his wife complainant. Under these circumstances the arguments of the LC for the complainant that complainant has not placed the order for supply/purchase of Tata Sumo Victa GX (8) seaters vide Ex.R-1 does not hold any water, especially when the Commissioner Report of course which is not got marked, but it being a part of the record shows the active part taken by Mudakappa the husband of the complainant by putting his signature on the Commissioner Repot. As stated supra Sri. B.V. Venkatesh Divisional Mechanical Engineer NEKRTC Raichur was appointed as Forum Commissioner to inspect and report the condition of the vehicle who after inspecting the vehicle has submitted his report on 06-05-08. Under these circumstances the contention/argument on behalf of the complainant that there was oral sale talk as per which the complainant had placed order for supply of Tata Sumo Maxi Cab of (9+1) seater does not hold any water. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the complainant had placed order for Tata Sumo Maxi Cab of (10) seater then in the natural course of events, the complainant could have refused to take delivery of Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters when the vehicle was delivered on 13-05-05 vide Ex.R-2 or even till she applied for registration of the vehicle before RTO Authority on 10-06-05. When according to her the Respondents have supplied (8) seater Tata Sumo Victa GX as against the Tata Sumo Maxi Cab (10) seaters then what necessitated her to mention the description of the vehicle for registration as Maxi Cab of 9 + 1 seating capacity which according to her was not delivered/ supplied to her. If all these lacunas are taken into account it amply go to shows that the complainant has purchased Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters. 16. Nextly it is argued by the L.C. for the complainant that the Registration Certificate at Ex.P-9 and Permit at Ex.P-10 issued by RTO Authority go to show the vehicle as Tourist Maxi of (10) seaters and the RTO Authorities-Respondent NO- 2 & 3 without verifying the vehicle have blindly issued the two certificates at Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 mentioning the vehicle as Tourist Maxi Cab of (10) seaters. Of course as rightly argued by the LC, we find a glaring mistake committed by Respondent NO- 2 & 3 in this regard and the explanation of Respondent NO- 2 & 3 in their written version that as per the application of the complainant they have mentioned the vehicle as Maxi Cab of (10) seaters cannot be said to be explanation since they are duty bound to issue Registration Certificate and Permit after physical verification of the vehicle as such, but this lacunas will not help to the complainant in any way especially when according to her the Respondent NO-1 has supplied the Tata Sumo Victa Sumo of (8) seaters as against her order for supply of Maxi Cab of (10) seater. But as discussed above Ex.R-1 order form goes to show that the husband of the complainant had placed order for supply/purchase of (8) seaters Tata Sumo Victa GX and not Tata Sumo Maxi Cab (10) seaters which was taken delivery by the complainant along with sale certificate etc., thee is absolutely no material on record that the complainant had made complaint to Respondent No-1 in this regard and sought for replacement of (10) seaters vehicle within the reasonable time from the date of taking delivery of this vehicle in-question except, a stray statement ( at para-4 of her complaint) that she had made oral request for necessary redressal which is against the nature of prudent person. As per para-6 of her complaint she had given a legal notice to the Respondents on 27-07-06 in the matter but the office copy of the legal notice dt. 27-07-06 at Ex.P-1=Ex.R-8 does not whisper a single word that the Respondent NO-1 has supplied (8) seater vehicle instead of (10) seater vehicle. But in Para-2 of her legal notice it is stated that she has purchased Tourist Tata Sumo with seating capacity of 9+ 1 from the Respondent No-1. From a close scrutiny of this legal notice it states only with regard to defects of AC and other parts of the vehicle and sought to set right the defects. Except this there is no allegation that she has made in the complaint that the Respondent NO-1 had supplied vehicle of seating capacity of (8) seater as against (10) seater. This legal notice dt. 27-07-06 Ex.P-1=Ex.R-8 makes it clear that from the date of taking delivery of the vehicle in-question and even at the time of issuance of legal notice vide ex.P-1 the complainant had no grievance in regard to the seating capacity of the vehicle. This in-turn falsify her contention that Respondent NO-1 supplied Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters as against her order for Maxi Cab of (10) seaters. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has failed to prove that Respondent NO-1 has supplied Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters as against oral agreement for purchase/sale of Tata Sumo Victa Gx of (10) seaters. 17. Now let us consider the contention of the complainant regarding defect of AC parts and other parts of the vehicle. The complainant in Para-5 & 6 of her complaint has contended that AC parts and other parts of the vehicle are found defective and she intimated Respondent No-1 to set right the defective AC parts and other parts even within in the warranty period but the Respondent No-1 did not perform their binding duty so she got issued legal notice to the Respondent No-1 on 27-07-06 for complying the defects of the vehicle. But in-spite of service of legal notice Respondent NO-1 has not given any response, so she has filed the present complaint. Admittedly the vehicle in-question was purchased/taken delivery on 13-05-05 as per sale certificate Ex.R-2. Copy of legal notice Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8 shows issuance of legal notice on 27-07-06 which is within the warranty period as per Ex.P-12 Owners Manual and Service Book of Tata Sumo Victa GX on Page NO-8 of the manual. This means the complainant through Ex.P-1=Ex.R-8 has called upon Respondent No-1 to set right the defects of AC and other parts of the vehicle. The Respondent No-1 has not produced any evidence to show that they have complied with notice or replied to the said notice in any manner, this amply go to show that Respondent No-1 have not responded even to the legal notice got issued by the complainant. In this back ground the contention of the complainant that she had orally complained the defects of the AC and other parts of the vehicle and on failure of the Respondent NO-1 to respond to the same, she got issued legal notice probabalizes her case. The argument of the LC for the Respondent No-1 that the complainant without brining the vehicle to the showroom/shop of Respondent No-1 for showing the defects and for set righting the same she went on informing over phone and so they did not respond holds no water, especially when after the receipt of legal notice Ex.P.1 = Ex.R.8 from the complainant, they could have replied or intimated to the complainant for bringing the vehicle to their show room to ascertain the alleged defects and to set right the same. So the failure on the part of Respondent No-1 is not only against the warranty terms and conditions vide Ex.P-12 and also shows deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent No-1. 18. The L.C. for the complainant submitted that the vehicle in-question was used for three months and thereafter it was stopped moving and kept idle and at that juncture legal notice came to be issued which was not responded by the Respondent No-1 and thereby the complainant was forced to get the vehicle repaired by incurring expenditure and now the generous submission made by the LC for the Respondent No-1 that even now Respondent No-1 is ready to repair the vehicle free of service charges is of no avail to the complainant. We find substances in this argument especially when the Respondent No-1 even failed to reply to the legal notice issued at Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8. The Forum Commissioner Report dt. 06-05-08 go to show that when he inspected the vehicle he found the vehicle is of 7 + 1 seater and it was in good condition but however he noticed that AC part of the vehicle was not in working condition. Admittedly this Forum Commissioner has inspected the vehicle in the presence of both the parties and the respective advocate. This shows that the AC part of the vehicle still is not in working condition and it supports the contents of legal notice Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8 that the AC parts was defective after (3) months of the purchase of the vehicle. The argument of the LC for the complainant that she got repaired vehicle by incurring expenditure, is not supported by any voucher/bill. But however the report of Forum Commissioner as stated above shows that the vehicle was in good condition except the AC part which was not in good condition probabalizes the contention of the complainant that she got repaired the vehicle but in the absence of any voucher produced by the complainant we are unable to consider for reimbursement of the same. So all these factors go to show deficiency in service by the Respondent No-1 in not complying even to the legal notice for setting right the defects as stated in the legal notice and so to this extent we hold that the complainant has proved this aspect of the matter. 19. In a nut shell we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the Respondent No-1 has supplied the vehicle Tata Sumo Victa GX of (8) seaters as against the oral sale agreement for supply of Tata Sumo Victa Maxi Cab of (10) seater. However the complainant has proved that the Respondent No-1 was negligent and deficient in not complying to the legal notice for setting right the defects of AC and other parts of the vehicle and so Point No-1 is partly answered in the affirmative and partly in the negative. POINT NO.2:- 20. The complainant has sought for refund of Rs. 5,66,000/- being the cost/worth of the vehicle or in the alternative to supply the new vehicle of same model brand and worth, along-with Rs. 20,000/- towards cost and damages. In-view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 one thing is clear that the vehicle had defects in AC parts and some other parts But the complainant in her complaint has not specifically stated as to which parts were defective. When according to her she got repaired the vehicle, then she could have specifically stated the other defective parts by producing, the estimate and bills of the mechanic through whom she got it repaired. When the complainant is harping upon for deficiency in service by the Respondent No-1 then she should be very specific and definite as to which parts of the vehicle were defective. In the absence of the same it follows that those defects were not manufacturing defects. Hence her claim for replacement of the vehicle or for refund of the price cannot be accepted but however having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in Point No-1, and having regard to the report of the Forum Commissioner that vehicle is in good condition except AC part which was not in working condition, we feel it just and proper to direct Respondent No-1 for setting right at their cost and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by the complainant for repairing the other parts of vehicle which was made known to the Respondent No-1 through legal notice Ex.P-1 = Ex.R-8. In this view of the matter we pass the following order ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent No-1 is directed to set right the AC part of the vehicle free of cost even by replacing AC part if any and to pay a global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- including cost of proceedings. The Respondent shall comply this order within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 29-11-08) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.