DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30th day of October 2010 .

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.127/2009

M.H. Sekhar

32/784 (1) “Parijatham” Sastha Street

Vadakkanthara,

Palakkad – 678 809.

(Rep. By Power of AttorneyHolder M. Ramachandran

General Secretary

Consumer Protection Council of Palakkad.) - Complainant

Vs

1. Branch Manager

Indus Motors

Palakkad

(Adv. C.K. Bhaskaran & P.K. Aboobacker)

2. The Branch Manager

Indus Motors

Ernakulam.

(Adv. C.K. Bhaskaran & P.K. Aboobacker)

3. Chief General Manager

(Service) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd

Palam, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon – 122 015. - Opposite parties

(Adv. V. Santharam & Manikandan.M.R)

O R D E R

By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

Brief facts of the complaint.

The complainant purchased a Maruthi Alto Car (LX1 BS III) from the 1^st opposite party. At the time of booking, sales executive of the 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that he would be supplied with a 2009 model vehicle. The complainant booked the vehicle as per order booking form having No.33397 dated 30/03/2009 and paid the advance amount of Rs.5,000/. But the 1^st opposite party failed to give a receipt for the amount. Complainant paid the full amount as per Invoice No. VSL 08009491 dated 31/03/2009. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 03/04/2009 through the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party gave the sale certificate that the month of

- 2 -

manufacture is March 2009. But the retail invoice does not contain the year or month of manufacture. The year of manufacture in the Registration Certificate is 2008. On receipt of the Registration Certificate, complainant was convinced that he was cheated by the opposite parties. After that the complainant contacted the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in person and explained all facts. But both of them failed to convince the complainant that there was no fault on their part. So the complainant sent his grievance by e-mail dated 28/04/2009 addressed to the 1^st opposite party with copy to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, but no response from opposite parties. The complainant got a letter from the Customer Relations Management Department of Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd stating that they were forwarding the complainant's letter to their Regional Sales Team at Kochi for further action. The complainant states that no action taken from the Kochi office till date. The resale value of the vehicle varies with year of manufacture or model. In this case the resale value was lesser for a 2008 model than that of 2009. Subsequently the complainant approached the central office of the Consumer Protection Council of Palakkad. The Secretary of Consumer Protection Council has sent a letter to the Customer Relations Manager of Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd. But the Secretary informed the complainant that he has not received any reply. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to

1. either replace the vehicle with the 2009 model or pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation

2. Pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony

3. Pay Rs.5,000/- as cost.

All opposite parties filed version. The contention of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are as follows. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased and took delivery of one Maruthi Alto Car on 03/04/3009 from the 1^st opposite party. The advance payment of Rs.5,000/-of proper receipt was issued to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party stated that they never promised to deliver a 2009 model vehicle to the complainant. The Complainant had booked an Alto Car in the Order Booking Form which is the contract between the complainant and Opposite parties.

- 3 -

In the order Booking Form no where it is mentioned that the opposite parties will deliver a 2009 model Alto Maruthi Car to the complainant. The opposite parties had delivered brand new car to the complainant and the same is not disputed by the complainant. The Alto car booked by the complainant was manufactured at the Maruthi Company during the year 2008. As a dealer, the opposite parties had issued a sale certificate dated 03/04/2009 to the complainant for the purpose of registering the vehicle. The vehicle was supplied to the opposite parties by the manufacturer during January 2009 and only because of that these opposite parties happened to show the model as 2009 in the sale letter. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are only the dealer of Maruthi and the vehicle will be delivered as per the supply of the vehicles from the manufacturer . The manufacturer will issue a communication showing the cut-off chassis numbers of the vehicles of a particular year to the Transport Commissioner that the vehicles beyond the Chassis number shown in the said communication was manufactured in the particular year. On the basis of that information the Transport Commissioner will issue a circular to all the Regional Transport Offices and they will register that vehicle shown the model of that particular year. In this case the chassis number of the vehicle would be included on the 2008 model numbers as per the communication issued by the manufacturer. Being a dealer, these opposite parties have no control in these aspects. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties stated that the value of a vehicle does not completely depend upon the month of manufacturing but only on the maintenance, condition and performance of a vehicle.

The contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that he has no involvement in the transaction of sale of vehicle to the complainant. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are dealers under a dealership agreement on principal to principal basis and hence 3^rd opposite party is not responsible for the alleged act of omission. 3^rd opposite party was not a privy to the sale transaction between the complainant and 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Hence not responsible for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. 3^rd opposite party has denied the alleged Consumer Protection Council issued any letter . There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties. All opposite parties prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

- 4 -

Evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A9 on the side of complainant. Opposite parties filed chief affidavit. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite parties. Matter was heard on the side of opposite parties. Complainant not present for hearing.

Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties.

2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

We have carefully gone through all the relevant documents on record. The grievance of the complainant is that he has specifically demanded for 2009 model and opposite parties assured to deliver the same. But when the registeration certificate is issued year of manufacture is seen 2008. According to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties they have not given such an assurance. They have issued certificate to the complainant for the purpose of registering the vehicle and had performed all the duties of a dealer. According to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties year of manufacture is certified by Regional Transport Officer based on cut off chassis number received from the 3^rd opposite party every year and this cannot be changed by any one . The grievance of the complainant is that he has specifically demanded for 2009 model Maruthi Alto Car, but when he received the registeration certificate the year of manufacture is seen as 2008.

Exhibit A1 shows that the complainant booked the vehicle on 30/03/2009 and the advance amount is Rs.5,000/-. According to Exhibit A3 issued by the 2^nd opposite party shows that the manufacturing year is 2009. As per Exhibit A4 the sale certificate issued by the 2^nd opposite party stated that the month of manufacture is March 2009. Subsequently the certificate of Registration (Ext A5) is issued by the Regional Transport Office seen that year of manufacture is 2008. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties stated that the value of a vehicle does not completely depend upon the month of manufacturing and the vehicle delivered to the complainant was not for any sale purpose, but for his personal use. In the insurance the claim amount can be considered, the depreciation amount was calculated on basis of the manufacturing year. Also the value of a vehicle was calculated on basis of

- 5 -

manufacturing year. The counsel of 3^rd opposite party argued that 2009 model given only for booking after the month of April. No documentary evidence was produced by 3^rd opposite party to prove the same. As per Exhibit A1, the model of the car was not stated. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of the complainant because on ordinary prudent man booking a vehicle in the year 2009 expect delivery of the vehicle manufactured in the same year. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties stated that the year of manufacturing of vehicle will be certified by Regional Transport Officer based on cut off chassis number received from 3^rd opposite party every year and this cannot be changed by anyone. On the basis of information from the 3^rd opposite party to the Transport Commissioner , he has issued circular to all the Regional Transport Offices in Kerala. So the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, is not a necessary party to this case. As per Exhibit A4 in the document issued by the 2^nd opposite party, Sale certificate it can be seen that month of manufacture is March 2009. From this it can be inferred that the dealer has assured 2009 model of the vehicle to the complainant. The Opposite parties have not produced the list of sale price of the Maruthi Alto Car. So we considered Rs.15,000/- as compensation.

In the above discussions we are of the view that unfair trade practice is exercised by all opposite parties in not delivering the vehicle as promised and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. In the result complaint allowed.

All opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of October, 2010

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

- 6 -

APPENDIX

Date of filing: 18/09/09

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Attested copy of Order Form

2. Ext. A2 – Attested copy of the Vehicle Invoice received by the complainant

3. Ext . A3 – Attested copy of the Insurance policy from 01/04/09 to 31/03/10

4. Ext. A4 – Attested copy of the Sales Certificate in Form No.21 dated 31/03/2009

5. Ext. A5 – Attested copy of the Registeration Certificate issued by Regional Transport Officer,

Palakkad.

6. Ext. A6 – Copy of letter sent by Registered post to the Opposite parties

7. Ext. A7 – Attested copy of the letter having No,MSIL/CRM/AS185

8. Ext. A8 – Attested copy of the letter sent by the General Secretary, Consumer Protection Council of Palakkad to IIIrd opposite party.

9. Ext. A9 - Attested copy of the letter received by the General Secretary sent by Indus Motors

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Costs

Rs. 1,000 (Rs. One thousand only)